THE DEBATE ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE:
The Historic Past and Present views of Baptists
Dr. Joe McGee
______
OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE DEBATE ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE 2
A. The Early Period of Southern Baptists. 2
B. The Period of E. Y. Mullins and W. T. Conner. 6
C. The Period between the Late Fifties through the Late Seventies. 12
D. The Period Referred to as the “Holy War.” 19
III. CONCLUSION 24
IV. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 26
INTRODUCTION
There are, within the Southern Baptist Convention, extremely different views involving the authority of the Scriptures. The conservatives hold that every word, in the original language, in the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and supremely authoritative Word of God. The moderates, on the other hand, hold that the very words within the Scriptures are not inspired, but the thoughts revealed by Jesus while reading the Bible are inspired or/and that the authorities of the academia, divine-human encounter or tradition at times, out rank the authority of the Bible. These two opposing views of Scripture culminated in a battle to control the Southern Baptist Convention during the late nineteen-seventies through the early nineteen-nineties. Though, the moderates lost control of the Southern Baptist Convention, they were successful in gaining control of both the Texas and Virginia Baptist Conventions
Although, the battle was for the Baptist Book Store (now LifeWay), and the Foreign Mission Board (now International Mission Board), the main battle was for control of the Southern Baptist Seminaries; in which the conservatives were successful in their quest to regain control.
This writer will provide a snap-shot and critique the views of the Scriptures within the Southern Baptist Convention; especially the views of the professors of the seminaries, during the early period of Southern Baptist, the period of E. Y. Mullins and W.T. Conner, the period between the late fifties through the late seventies and the period referred to as the holy war. The writer will conclude by examining what the conservatives and moderates are doing today.
THE DEBATE ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
The Historic Past and Present views of Baptists
The Early Period of Southern Baptists
In 1813, Luther Rice had a dream of a general convention consisting of state conventions, associations, and churches to join in a movement to promote foreign missions. His dream was realized with the organization of “The General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions,” in May, 1814. This organization was referred to as “The Triennial Convention” since the members met every three years. Later, in 1817 the Home Mission Society was added. During the early 1840s, a division over the question of slavery divided the Northern and Southern Baptists which resulted in the establishment of the Southern Baptist Convention on May 8-12, 1845, in Augusta Georgia.1 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was founded in 1859, the result of action taken at the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention. The first faculty was composed of James P. Boyce, chairman, he would later serve as the first president; John A Broadus; Basil Manly, Jr. and William Williams.2 The following critique of the traditional conservative theology of these men will give evidence that each were orthodox in their view of Scripture. James P. Boyce (1827-1888) placed revelation above reason when he contrasted the two in his book, Abstract of Systematic Theology, by defining revelation with “the knowledge which God conveys by direct supernatural instruction, pre-eminently that given in the book known as the Bible. He argued the following a priori as to the nature of this revelation by stating that “the source must come from God,” that “it must be secured from all possibility of error,” and “it must come with authority, claiming and proving its claim to be the word of God” which he believed was established in the Bible.3 In Boyce’s Abstract of Principles, he gives additional evidence of his personal view of Scripture in the first article, which is entitled, “The Scripture.” It is here that he states that “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain, and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.”4
Basil Manly, Jr. (1825 – 1982), wrote The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. The book was the most important and informative work on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in shaping the early years of Southern Baptist life. Manly wrote the book in opposition and in response to Crawford Howell Toy’s controversial historical critical method of interpreting the Bible. Manly argued that
1Norman Wade Cox, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist,. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958, s. v. “The Southern Baptist Convention,” by J. W. Storer, 1244-45. 2Norman Wade Cox, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist,. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958, s. v. “ Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” by Leo T. Crimson, 1269. 3James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Pompano Beach, FL: Christian Gospel Foundation, 1887), 47. 4Ibid, B. an uninspired Bible would furnish no infallible standard of thought, no authoritative rule for obedience and no grounds for confidence and everlasting hope. 5
In affirming his view of “plenary inspiration,” he states, “The doctrine which we hold is that commonly styled plenary inspiration or full inspiration. It is that the Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so that in every part of Scripture there is both infallible truth and divine authority.”6
John Albert Broadus (1827 – 1895) served as the Professor of New Testament interpretation and homiletics beginning in 1859. The trade name of the general book publishing of the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention “Broadman” was coined by John Leonard Hill from the last names of John Broadus and Basil Manly Jr., secretary and president, respectively, of the Sunday School Board.7
Broadus affirmed every aspect of Scripture as infallible truth and divine authority. In the book, Three Questions as to the Bible, the question was asked; “To what extent ought we to regard the sacred writings of the Old and New Testament as inspired?” His answer was “completely.” He encouraged his student to be “mighty in the Scriptures,” just days before his death. In The Paramount and Permanent Authority of the Bible, he wrote:
Now, I address myself to people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God; not merely that it contains the Word of God, which wise persons may disentangle from other things in the book, but that it is the Word of God. . . .It is entirely possible that we may have no creed system of theology, no professors or even preachers, nor newspaper writers, nor writers of tracts, that can always interpret the Bible with infallible success. But our persuasion is that the real meaning of the Bible is true.8
Crawford Howell Toy (1836 – 1919) is an example of the traditional conservative theology which was encouraged in the churches and seminaries and their unwilliness to accept or endorse any liberal theology. Toy joined the faculty of Southern Seminary in 1869; in the beginning he was committed to the total truthfulness of Scripture. During his inaugural address he stated, “The Bible, its real assertions being known is in every iota of its substance absolutely and infallible true.” However, after being influenced by Darwinian evolution and the theory of Pentateuchal criticism, which is a form of historical criticism advanced by the German scholar Julius Wellhausen, his views gradually modified. With his fascination of “progressive” scholarship, Toy began to deny that many of the events in the Old Testament had occurred and he disputed the Christological associations of many of the messianic prophecies. Boyce, as chairman of the trustees, chastised Toy concerning his views on the inspiration and prohibited him from advocating his radical views in the classroom. Nonetheless, Toy was asked to resign when he continued his heretical teachings. At the time, John Broadus spoke for Boyce, the faculty, and
5David S. Dockery, “The Crisis of Scripture in Southern Baptist Life: Reflections on the Past, Looking to the Future,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 09, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 38. 6Timothy and Denise George, Basil Manly, Jr.: The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (Nashville, Broadman and Holman, 1995), 53. 7Norman Wade Cox, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist, 194. 8Timothy George and David S. Dockery, Theologians of the Baptist Traditions (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 105 – 106. the trustees when he presented the necessity of Toy’s removal. “Duty to the founders of the institution and to all who had given money for its support and endowment. Duty to the Baptist churches from whom its students must come, required (Boyce) to see to it that such teaching should not continue.” Toy subsequently became a professor at Harvard University where he affiliated with the Unitarian church and embraced even more radical critical views concerning the inspiration and authority of the Bible.9
While Boyce, Broadus and Manly represented the denomination’s established orthodox teaching of the inspiration and authority of the Bible at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary during this period of its History, B. H. Carroll (1843 – 1914) would soon represent the denomination’s view at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. As a young man Carroll had struggled with the inerrancy and authority of Scripture as he alleged to have uncovered nearly a thousand inconsistencies. However, after his salvation experience and his meticulous study of the Word, he found evidence that the Scriptures were true in all but six apparent contradictions which he attributed to his own limited comprehension of God’s truth and not to any scriptural fallibility.
When popular liberal German theologians made claims that only certain parts of the Scripture were inspired or authoritative and denied the truthfulness of certain Old Testament events, Carroll stood tall as a champion of God’s Word. He taught the conservative verbal, plenary view of the inspiration of Scripture; he stated, “God’s infallible and inerrant word not only contains the Word of God; it is God’s very Word. The Bible is not inspired only in certain spots, nor are certain passages less inspired than other. All of the canonical Scriptures are God-breathed.” He clarified that he believed that only the original documents were inspired and believed that God “had preserved the Bible in a way that no other book has been preserved.” 10
In defense of the inspiration and authority of the Scripture against those who question the accuracy of different sections of it, Carroll stated:
Whoever discounts this Book, breaks the only weapon that God has put into the hands of man with which to fight the devil. Whoever doubts a passage of it, sheathes one of its bolts of lightning. Whoever allows a doubt to creep over one of its exceedingly great and precious promises, has suffered hell to take a mortgage on his hope of eternal life. Now, I will show you directly that this is the only offensive weapon that God ever puts in the hands of a Christian with which to fight the devil; the Book, the Word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit. Take that with you.11
In concluding the research covering the early period of Southern Baptists history the over-all evidence is clear that only a verbal, plenary, inspired, inerrant, infallible and authoritative view of the Scripture was acceptable at the seminaries, in the churches and through out the Southern Baptist and State Conventions. Anyone who taught contrary would not be acceptable.
9George, Basil Manly, Jr.: The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, 6-7.
10Timothy and Denise George, B. H. Carroll: Baptists and Their Doctrines (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 13. 11Ibid, 178.
The Period of E. Y. Mullins and W. T. Conner
Southern Baptists were involved in several controversies during the early twentieth century. J. Frank Norris was leading the Fundamentalist during the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy. J. R. Graves was the main leader behind the Landmark controversy. The controversy between the Calvinist and Armenian theology was being addressed. New streams in theology, psychology and philosophy, including Williams James’s pragmatism, were being introduced into religious institutes resulting in a shift from epistemology of rationalism, which emphasizes the role of reason, to both an empirical and experiential approaches. These are approaches that attribute to sense perception or religious experience.12 It is with this background that we examine the influence of E. Y. Mullins and W.T. Conner. E.Y. Mullins (1860 – 1928) served as the president of Southern Seminary from 1899-1928 and served as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1921 through 1923. Mullins had often acted as a mediator between the opposing forces. Even today conservatives and moderates quote and claim him in their groups, though conservatives question some of his writings. While in the middle of the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy, he wrote an article for The Fundamentals. Yet, he grew to dislike the style, rhetoric and confrontational spirit of many of the leaders of the Fundamentalist group, especially J. Frank Norris who wanted to “put the screws on everybody’ by pinning his ‘brethren down to stereotype statements.” Mullins called them “big F fundamentalists” even at other times referring to them as bibliolaters. However, he would later repudiate the statements. During the same time Mullins spoke out against the liberals’ subjectivists and anti-supernatural views. Mullins was a conservative who opposed the extreme views and conduct of both the fundamentalist and the liberals.13 Though he attended and graduated from Southern Seminary when James Boyce was president and strong Calvinism was the norm, Mullins modified that view during his tenure as president. First, he revised Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology and later replaced Boyce’s book with his own theology book, The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression, where he further modified Boyce’s strong position to a moderate position that most Southern Baptist accept today. When Mullins adopted his moderate Calvinist position during the Calvinist-Armenian controversy, he wrote:
As usual the extreme parties are doing most of the harm. On one side is the ultra- conservative, the man of the hammer and anvil method, who relies chiefly upon denunciation of opponents, and who cannot tolerate discussion on a fraternal basis; on the other is the ultra-progressive whose lofty contempt of the “traditionalist” shuts him out from the ranks of sane scholarship and wise leadership. The really safe leaders of thought, however, are between these extremes.14
The area of ministry that questioned his commitment to the authority of Scripture was his study and belief in certain scientific and philosophical ideas. Mullins was influenced by the pragmatism of William James. Mullins would explain that pragmatism “renounces the idea that
12Albert Mohler, “E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms Of Religion,” The Al Mohler Blog, entry posted July 16, 2009, http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/e-y-mullins-the-axioms-of-religion (accessed July 4, 2011). 13Tom Nettles, The Baptist: Key People Involved in Forming A Baptist Identity, Vol. 3 (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, 2007), 197 -198. 14Timothy George and David S. Dockery, Theologians of the Baptist Traditions (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 183-184. truths are ready made and given to us independent of and apart from our experiences.”15 Mullins was also influenced by experientialism, taught by the liberal theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. However, Mullins himself did not teach a pure experientialism.16 These influences affected his view concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. Mullins believed that there were two methods of approaching the question of the authoritativeness of the Scriptures. The first method was what he referred to as the psychological method. It seeks to distinguish between the revelation, illumination and the inspiration. This is what conservatives would refer to as biblical revelation. Mullins described a few theories of inspiration, such as, the naturalistic theory that holds that as God dwells in all men, all are inspired. To him, it was obvious that this was not a biblical doctrine of inspiration. Another theory was that the inspiration was illumination rather than infallible guidance of truth. He felt this left room for many varying degrees of truth and error in the outcome. When Mullins discussed the plenary verbal theory and the dynamic He stated:
With regards to these theories it may be remarked that none of them is an exhaustive or adequate expression of the teaching of Scripture. Most of them no doubt contain certain elements of truth, but they attempt the impossible. It is not within our power to analyze fully the process by which God’s Spirit operates upon the human mind in providing for us a record of his redemptive dealings with man. 17
Mullins did not deny the plenary verbal or the dynamic theories. He accepted the Scriptures as authoritative and inspired by the Holy Spirit. He did not believe that man could comprehend the process of inspiration.
Mullins believed the second method, which is the experiential and practical method, was the correct approach to the doctrine of inspiration. This is to study the Bible inductively.18
His position confused both the evolutionists and their opponents since he never declared himself on the issue. Mullins, always the mediator, would not assist either side during the Scopes trial, even though both sides invited him.19 He had a respect for science and supported its research for the good that it provided. However, he did reveal his view of biblical authority as opposed to that of science in his message, Southern Baptists at a Crucial Hour, during the 1922 Southern Baptist Convention held in Jacksonville, Florida. Stated:
We have been much concerned over modern rationalism and the false assumptions of materialistic science. We are rightly jealous for the deposit of truth committed to us. It seems to me three things are clear: First, we will not tolerate in our denominational schools any departure from the great fundamentals of the faith in the name of science falsely so-called. Second, we will not be unjust to our teachers, nor curtail unduly their God-given right to investigate truth in the realm of science. Firm faith and free research is our noble Baptist ideal. Third, we will be loyal to every fact which is established in any realm of research, just
15Albert Mohler, “E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms Of Religion,” The Al Mohler Blog.. 16L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 265. 17Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1949), 144. 18Ibid, 142 -153. 19Albert Mohler, “E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms Of Religion,” The Al Mohler Blog. as we are loyal to the supreme fact of Christ, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his atoning death, his resurrection and present reign. It is he who speaks to us today.20
Mullins shift was more of a methodological development than a content development in his attempt to forge a mediating theological model for Southern Baptists. Some might say that his mediating positions were inherently unstable and may note that the compromises established in one generation are often abandoned in short order or reinterpreted as a new generation assumes leadership. Concerning Mullins, however, it is certain that he was a vital influence in maintaining unity within the Southern Baptist Convention during the many controversies of his time. It should also be noted that even though his methods were different than those in the Southern Baptist past, he constantly contended that the Bible is fully reliable and authoritative.21
W.T Conner (1877 – 1952) began his career as a professor of theoretical theology at Southwest Seminary in 1910, where he supported many of the views of E. Y. Mullins. Conner wrote a large amount concerning the revelation and authority, but little on the issue of inspiration while he never technically affirmed a particular view. In a 1918 article in a Southwestern Seminary Publication on “The Nature of the Authority of the Bible,” Conner expressed the authoritative character of Scripture.” He stated that “The only way to realize true freedom is by submission to rightful authority. The Bible then is the medium through which God’s authority is made known.”22 He also revealed additional information concerning his view on the authority of Scripture in his book, Christian Doctrine. Speaking to the authority of the Bible, he stated, “It is authoritative as the voice of God is authoritative to the soul of man. It finds man, searches him, makes him realize his need for spiritual help. If God speaks to man, he must speak in tones of authority.” However, he made a statement that some may interpret as neo-orthodox if the statement was to stand alone:
One thing that will help us to remember that the authority of the Bible is the authority of Christ. This follows from what has been said about the relationship of the Bible to Christ. We do not have two authorities, one, the authority of Christ; the other authority of the Bible; but one. Christ speaks to us through the Bible. Authority is ultimately personal in its nature. Our ultimate authority in Christianity is the authority of Christ as the revelation of God.23 Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863 – 1934) attended Southern Seminary under Boyce, Broadus, and Manly. In 1888, he became Broadus’ assistant and became associate professor in 1890. He succeeded Broadus as professor of New Testament interpretation in 1894.24 Robertson continued in the vein of his mentor John Broadus. He had a high regard for he inspiration and authority of Scripture. When writing The Bible as Authority, the Homiletic Review, he addressed the authority of the Bible, thus:
20Ergun and Emir Caner, Gen. ed., The Sacred Desk: Sermons of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 92.
9 21Albert Mohler, “E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms Of Religion,” The Al Mohler Blog. 22David S. Dockery, “The Crisis of Scripture in Southern Baptist Life: Reflections on the Past, Looking to the Future,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 09, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 41-42. 23W.T. Conner, Christian Doctrine (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937), 41-42. 24Norman Wade Cox, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist, 1168. But we should note that the mind of man is fallible and not able always to interpret rightly the steps of God in the rocks or voice of God in His Word or in his conscience. So I must think of the authority of the Bible as being the authority of God, if so be it is from God, as I believe. There is no ultimate authority in the spiritual realm outside of God. We hear His voice in the Bible as nowhere else and can never get away from our need of it.25
Timothy George and David Dockery share a story of Robertson that demonstrates his commitment to the authority and infallibility of Scripture:
His work, “The Relative Authority of Scripture and Reason,” was originally an address delivered before the tenth meeting of the Baptist Congress in May 1892. For several days, Robertson had listened to theologians such as William Newton Clark stand before the assembly and cast aspersions upon the infallibility and nature of the Bible. Robertson was so disappointed with the tone and spirit of some speakers from the platform that he decided to answer their toughest questions, and advance a few of his own, which resulted in one of the greatest treasures of the Robertson literary corpus. Here is Robertson at his best: thinking on his feet, responding to critics, and defending the faith.26
There were additional well known professors during this period of Southern Baptist history. The writer was only able to provide a snap-shop of the view of a few that represented a consensus of views. After examining the views, it is admitted that some of the professors may have been influenced by the new streams of psychology, philosophy and even to an extent neo-orthodoxy; however, the writer could not uncover evidence of any Southern Baptists professor who denied or held in question, the truthfulness, or authority of the Scriptures
The Period between the Late Fifties through the Late Seventies
During the late fifties and into the sixties there was already unrest within the churches concerning what was perceived as liberalism taught in the seminaries. David Dockery writes:
Two historical changes were initiated in the 1950s in Southern Baptist Life. The first and most important for our discussions was an open practice of historical- critical studies in the curriculums of Baptist seminaries and colleges. Historical criticism had been employed with faith affirming presuppositions by John Broadus and A. T. Robertson – so that both still affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible- but that began to change in the middle of the twentieth century. The other more wide-ranging shift was the movement to programmatic expansion….a movement away from theological commitments to pragmatic ones, consciously began to take place. I do not for one minute think it was a malicious attempt to undermine the orthodox theological consensus developed during the convention’s first century. The pragmatic outlook was what was central for growing a successful denomination in the Post World War II era. Orthodoxy was understood in terms of “doing the right
25Timothy George, A. T. Robertson: The Best of A. T. Robertson (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 143. 26Ibid, 110. program” rather than articulating the right belief system. What resulted was not so much a heterodox people but an “a-theological generation.27
July of 1961, Professor Ralph Elliott, an Old Testament scholar at Midwestern Seminary, published a book entitled, The Message of Genesis, utilizing the historical-critical methodology of interpreting the Scripture, resulting with his depiction of Genesis 1 -11 as mythological literature and the stories of the biblical characters as only parables. Elliott wrote the book from a neo-orthodox crisis theology approach. In strong reaction to Elliott’s book, during the 1962 Southern Baptist Convention meeting, the conservatives called for Elliott’s dismissal. But the Convention establishment (mostly moderates) did not want anything so disruptive. Two compromising resolutions pertaining to the issue were passed. They affirmed the entire Bible as authentic, authoritative, and infallible; not capable of error. They also decried any views that undermined the historical accuracy of the Bible. The Convention entrusted the handling of the controversy to the trustees of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Elliott would later be dismissed not for his disturbing heretical views or for teaching and writing such heresy, but for insubordination when he refused to withdraw the book from reprinting by a new publisher. Broadman Press was immediately criticized for their decision to print the book and their literature became suspect. Nancy Ammerman wrote, “On the surface, worried conservatives had a victory, Elliott was gone. But in other ways, they felt defeated. In a direct confrontation with heresy, the Convention had taken a back door route toward resolution.” C.R. Dailey, editor of The Kentucky Baptist Newspaper, stated, “If Elliott is a heretic, then he is one of many ….Professors in all our seminaries know that Elliott is in the same stream of thinking with most of them, and is more in the center than some of them.” 28
During this meeting the convention selected a committee that was given the task of rewriting the Baptist Faith and Message 1925. Since there was an expectation of denominational employees adhering to the articles of faith, it was believed that if the article that dealt with the Scriptures were better defined then there would not be another Elliott controversy. The highly respected Southern Baptist president, Herschel Hobbs, was appointed the chairman of this committee. During the 1963 Southern Baptist Convention in Kansas, there was lively debate but the new statement of faith passed. It kept the 1925 language about the Bible, describing it as “having truth without any mixture of error for its matter.” It added a statement stating that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” The conservatives was pleased with the new Baptist Faith and Message 1963, that seemed to them to endorse the view of
Scripture they called inerrancy. But it soon became apparent that “truth without any mixture of error” could be interpreted by denominational employees in a number of ways.29 Some denominational employees interpreted “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is
27David S. Dockery, “The Crisis of Scripture in Southern Baptist Life: Reflections on the Past, Looking to the Future,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 09, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 43. 28Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1995), 63-64. James Hefley, The Truth in Crisis: The Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention (Dallas: Criterion Publications, 1986), 49-50. L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 333 – 337.
29Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1995), 64 – 65. Jesus Christ,” as a way to teach a neo-orthodoxy; even claiming that Herschel Hobbs intended that definition when the Baptist Faith and Message was being discussed in committee. In his Baptist Press article, Gregory Tomlin states that the Baptist Faith and Message Committee’s decision for adding the last sentence to Article One was not for the reason that the moderates claimed that it was not intended to justified the teaching of neo-orthodoxy. An interview with Garth Pybas, one of the last living Baptist Faith committee members, revealed that “the phrase was not intended to elevate the idea of soul competency, freedom of interpretation and the priesthood of the believers above the Bible. Instead, it was intended to claim consistency between the teachings of Jesus and other portions of Scripture.” Pybas further stated that, “In a context where some scholars were denying the historicity of accounts like the opening chapters of Genesis, the committee wanted to affirm, unequivocally, that we were bound to read the Scriptures just as Jesus did. Since Jesus affirmed the creation account and other accounts, like that of Jonah, we were to accept the truthfulness of such accounts as well," Pybas denied that there was any discussion of etching a neo-orthodox meaning into Article 1.30
In 1969, Broadman published W. A. Criswell’s book, entitled, Why I Preach the Bible is Literally True.31 The Book was written in defense of the infallibility and authority of the Scripture during a time that many Southern Baptist professors rejected the views and terms. Criswell dedicated the book “To that man who stands anywhere in the earth with an open Bible and preaches to the people God’s infallible Word.” In the first chapter, Criswell gives evidence of his belief in the Scriptures by sharing the testimony of Jesus Christ, “The teachings of Jesus are the highest authority to which a Christian can make a direct appeal.” And Jesus taught that “divine revelation is mediated in a written record. What the Scriptures say, God says.” He then referred to Matthew 5:18; 19:4 and John 10:35 as examples of this teaching of Jesus. As to Jesus accepting the Scriptures as authoritative he states, “We must accept the whole Bible, for Jesus Christ has set his stamp of authority upon the entire book. . . .The most convincing of all proofs and arguments for the verbal inspiration of the Bible is the fact that the Lord Jesus regarded it and treated it as such” (p. 19). Criswell later addressed those who affirmed a liberal view of inspiration known as the dynamic theory, that God only provided the ideas and thoughts but not the very words:
To say that the inspiration of the Scriptures applies to their concepts and not to their words, to declare that one part of the Bible was written with one kind or degree of inspiration and another part with another kind or degree of inspiration, is not only destitute of any foundation or support from the Scriptures themselves but is repudiated by every statement in the Bible which bears upon the subject. . . . How can we know God’s thoughts if we do not know God’s words?32
Due to Criswell’s election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1969, the book was extensively publicized. Criswell published the book in reference to the 1962 resolution approved by the Southern Baptist Convention which stated, “We reaffirm our faith in the entire Bible as the authoritative, authentic, infallible Word of God. . . . our historical position. . . . As theological
30Gregory Tomlin, “Garth Pybas, a framer of ’63 BF&M as Bible affirmation, dies at 91,” Baptist Press News, entry posted December 11, 2006, http:/BPQueryDate.asp?preview=12/11/2006 (accessed July 5, 2011). 31W. A. Criswell, Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True (Nashville: Broadman, 1969). 32Ibed, 63. Liberalism that denies the Word of God has destroyed other churches, the same theological liberalism will destroy us,” Criswell further warned that “There is no common ground between Christianity and infidelity. God calls us to an obedient separation” (p. 159).
The evidence of predominantly liberal views of teaching within the seminaries was highlighted when Criswell’s book struck a nerve in the Baptist academic community. Sixty-four members of The Association of Baptist Professors of Religion published a resolution censuring Broadman Press for promoting the book.33
During the same year, Broadman Press published the Broadman Commentary which resulted in a controversy that would ignite an outcry during the 1970 Southern Baptist Convention in Denver Colorado. In 1966, Clifton J. Allen was chosen as the general editor of a set of commentaries covering each book of the Bible, employing many writers from different backgrounds. Clifton wrote the introductory article on “The Book of Christian Faith.” The article began with “We begin with the affirmation – the Bible is the Word of God.” However, after further review of his view of revelation and inspiration, Allen gives evidence that his views were from a liberal background. He reveals that he found the verbal inspiration inadequate, when he stated, “obviously reduces the writer almost to the equivalent of a tool in the hands of God and makes him virtually the completely controlled agent of God” (p. 6). He felt that the plenary theory led to “practical inerrancy” of the whole and of the part without committing itself to the extreme literalism of the verbal theory. The “dynamic” theory, of which he accepted a liberal version, yet felt it lacked preciseness. His conclusion was that “inspiration refers to the completeness and adequacy of Scripture” as a guide for faith and practice rather than to its “inerrancy in wording and analogy and details about persons and events.” Allen openly indicated that his guiding assumptions, as editor, are similar to those that had directed Crawford Toy and Ralph Elliott. It should be recognized that not all contributors to the Broadman Commentaries were liberal in the views of the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures.
The commentary on Genesis however was written by G. Henton Davies, a British Baptist scholar from Oxford who adopted a nonliteral view of many of the incidents mentioned in the Book of Genesis. He also claimed that Moses was not the writer of Genesis.34
During the convention, Gwin Turner, pastor of the First Baptist Church at Mar Vista in Los Angeles, California, introduced the following motion:
That because volume one of the new Broadman Bible Commentary is out of harmony with the beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptist pastors and people, this convention requests the Sunday School Board to withdraw volume one from further distribution and that it be written with due consideration of the conservative viewpoint.35
Turner read a prepared statement that gave evidence of the liberal view of Scriptures displayed in the writing of Davies’ section of the book. The motion was pasted with over sixty percent of the Southern Baptists voting for the conservatives views. The vote would be ignored by the
33L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 361 – 362. 34L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 329 – 330. 35Ibid, 330. Sunday School Board. When the conservatives’ pressed the issue at the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention, the Board reassigned the Genesis commentary to Clyde Francisco, who made it clear that he did not repudiate Davies’ work; Furthermore, not all theological questions were resolved in the revised copy.36
Because of the frustration the conservatives were experiencing, a distrust and suspicion of the Southern Baptist Seminaries grew among the churches. In 1970, Mid-America Seminary and in 1971, Criswell Biblical Center joined Luther Rice Seminary that had already been established in 1962 as institutions of conservative training for Southern Baptist students.37
Though the conservatives greatly outnumbered the moderates, it was the moderates who led and sat on the board of trustees of all the Southern Baptist entities. And in most situations they controlled the State Conventions. The conservatives had shown up in large numbers with the intention to reclaim and redirect the institution that was flagrantly questioning the inspiration and authority of the Word of God. Conservatives could only look back in frustration. They had won almost every vote on the Bible issue at the Southern Baptist Conventions, but it seemed little had been accomplished with the agencies, particularly the Sunday School Board and the seminaries. The people of the Convention could vote their pleasure during the convention meetings, however, only the trustees of each institution could make a decision to accept the will of the people or reject it; most times they rejected it. The conservatives began to realize that winning votes at annual convention meetings, even those directly addressing the work of its institutions, was not enough to derail what they perceived as a dangerous slide toward liberalism being fostered by professional staffs of the institutions and allowed by complacent or sympathetic boards of trustees.38
Judge Paul Pressler vividly remembers attending a layman’s conference in New Orleans. Ray Robbins, a professor at New Orleans Seminary was the guest speaker. During his presentation he denied the substitutionary atonement. This episode caused great concern for Pressler who had shared his apprehension with a deacon of his church who recommended that he speak with Paige Patterson. One night, after 10:00 pm, Pressler met Patterson at his New Orleans Seminary apartment for the first time. They went to the Café du Monde in the French Quarters. This was a historic meeting that would lead to many meetings in which plans would be developed that would lead to the conservative resurgence.39
The Period Referred to as the “Holy War”
During the late seventies, the great majority of Southern Baptists were conservative in their religious views. They believed in an inspired, authoritative Bible. Yet, they were frustrated. Though they kept winning the votes that should have resulted with the return of conservative ideals, the Southern Baptist institutions ignored their vote and concern. This would soon change, the conservatives decided to replace the trustees and officers of all the convention institutions.
36Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles, 68. 37Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles, 68. 38Ibid, 68. 39Paul Pressler, A Hill On Which to Die: One Southern Baptist Journey (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 59 -60. Roy Honeycutt, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, referred to this as the “Holy War.”40 The conservatives would refer to this as the “Conservative Resurgence.”
Paul Pressler received a call from William “Bill” Powell, the leader of a new group called the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship. Bill found the key. It lay in parliamentary procedures embodied in the structure and legalities of the Southern Baptist Convention. The key was the president, who had the power to appoint the Committee of Committees. The Committee on Committees then nominated the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee therefore nominated the trustees of all the Southern Baptist Institutions. The president’s nomination was in “conference with the vice-presidents.” However, the president did not have to accept their recommendations. He noted that each of the state conventions is governed by a board of trustees elected by the convention for a term of three, four, or five years. Each person elected to a board which has four or five years is eligible for two terms. Since the rotation of trustees was very slow, it was thought that it would take as long as ten years to replace all of the trustees with those who uphold the authority of Scripture.41 Later, after Powell had contracted Alzheimer disease and passed away Pressler had felt it was time for others to take the lead. In 1977, he received a call from five students who attended Baylor University. While meeting with them he found that they were confused since the conservative views that they were taught in their home churches were being attacked and their approach to their studies in theology was that of higher critical method, which in their words, denied the complete accuracy of the Word of God. This is when Pressler decided that he would not sit back any longer and called a meeting with Patterson.
They decided at the meeting that the two of them would need the help and support of well known men who were recognized for their stand on the authority of the Scriptures. Men, such as; Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, John Bisagno and Jimmy Draper. Richard Jackson had been invited but he decided to cancel his participation.42 These men invited other well known conservatives within their ranks and began planning conservative meetings around the country for the purpose of informing, enlisting and organizing conservative pastors and lay members. In 1979, this work resulted in the first, of what would be many conservative presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention their purpose was to make conservative changes within the system. The moderates worked hard against his election; however, Adrian Rogers would be elected to lead the way. By 1980, the moderates were asking, “If there are those who are not faithful to historic Baptist beliefs, who are they?” Paige Patterson responded in his paper “A Reply of Concern,” by examining the work and writing of several Southern Baptist denominational employees. The first was Temp Sparkman, professor of Christian education at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote statements of universalism and explained how one might sign a confession or sign a statement of faith which he really did not believe.
Patterson then discussed C. W. Christian of the Religion Department at Baylor, who stated in his book Shaping Your Faith (1973): “This disparity between Genesis and Darwin, if it comes down to it, has really been decided for all of us in Darwin’s favor” (p. 62). Later he wrote, “And one
40L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 367. 41Paul Pressler, A Hill On Which to Die: One Southern Baptist Journey, 78 – 79. 42Ibid, 83-84. cannot begin to understand the clearly provable inadequacies of Scripture scientifically and historically” (81). Patterson discusses Glenn Hinson, a professor of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote the book Jesus Christ where he makes the statement that none of the Gospel statements of facts are absolutely factual and also how some embellishment undoubtedly occurred as the Scriptures were being written. Patterson shares an example of Fisher Humphreys, who taught at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In his book The Death of Christ, He believed that the cross was not necessary (p.55). Then Patterson directed his focus to the summer 1979 Convention Uniform Series Young Adult Sunday School Quarterly, which raised questions concerning the authority of Scripture and suggested that Daniel did not write the Book of Daniel. He then discussed an entry of the Review and Expositor, the academic journal published by Southern Seminary. An article by Frank E. Eakin Jr. raised questions about the authenticity of the plagues in the Book of Exodus (p. 476). Patterson’s last entry was Eric Rust’s 1959 University of Richmond Pastor’s Conference addresses which questioned the historicity of Noah’s ark by concluding, “Well, I guess that’s a parable.”And commenting on the concepts of the Garden of Eden, Rust said, “You see, take it literally and you will land yourself . . . you make yourself a laughing stock for intelligent people.” Later, Patterson would add Dale Moody, professor of Christian theology at Southern Seminary, who wrote a systematic theology book entitled, The Word of Truth, in which it is suggested that Moody believed that a person could be saved apart from receiving Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord.43
The denominational leaders continued to believe that tolerance for what they referred to as “avant-garde,” experimental or innovative, theological views was healthy and was an essential stance from the Baptist “freedom point of view.” Thus, they took the label “Moderates.” This was more political than theological since some leaders were conservative theological but saw themselves as denominational loyalists. However, many of the leaders advocated theological existentialism, neo-orthodoxy, higher-criticism, feminism and pragmatism. 44
During the 1985 SBC Pastor’s Conference in Dallas, Texas, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas and founder of Criswell Biblical Center, attested to the dangers of denominational employees who did not hold to a strong view of scriptural authority in his sermon, Whether We Live or Die. He first described the “pattern of death for a denomination,” referring to the decline of the British Baptists. Then he cited the effects of Darwinism and the German higher criticism on the British Baptists and how their leaders had claimed the priesthood of the believers justified such teaching. He continued to demonstrate how it affected their missions, baptisms and growth. Criswell recounted the death of religious institutions, taking the Northern Baptists’ Divinity School at the University of Chicago as his example, illustrating how it began to train preachers, “but then the infiltration began, the curse, the rot, the virus, the corruption of the higher critical approach to the gospel began to work.” He further explained how the same danger had infiltrated within the denomination’s own schools and institutions. Then he refers to the Crawford Toy controversy of the mid-nineteenth century at Southern Seminary:
43 Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 18 – 21. 44 L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 364. In a recent issue of the Review and Exposition, the theological journal of the Southern Baptist seminary, an article gave Toy lavish praise and said that Toy was merely ahead of his time. “That is, if he lived and taught today, his higher critical destructive approach to the Word of God would be perfectly acceptable, condoned, and defended. . . . If we are to survive as a people of God, we must wage war against this disease that more than any other will ruin our missionary, evangelistic, and soul-winning commitment.45
One of the defining moments during this period was James Draper’s book, Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists.46 This book helped to define the controversy and philosophical theology terms in such a way that the average pastor could express the situations to the laity sitting in the pews. He not only defined but simplified terms relating to inspiration, such as, plenary and verbal inspiration, and the words infallible and inerrant, all from a conservative view point.
For the next several years the conservatives were successful in their quest to vote for the right presidents and trustees of the institutions. Great conservative men who stood on the authority of the Scriptures were elected as presidents, such as, Adrian Rogers, 1979; Bailey Smith, 1980 & 81; Jimmy Draper, 1982 & 83; Charles Stanley, 1984 & 85; Adrian Rogers, 1986 & 87; Jerry Vines, 1988 & 89; Morris Chapman, 1990 & 91; Edwin Young, 1992 & 93; Jim Henry, 1995 & 96; Tom Elliff, 1996 & 97; Paige Patterson, 1998 & 99; James Merritt, 2000 & 2001.47
The conservatives had replaced the trustees and leaders of the SBC institutions. There were outcries by the moderates, including many of the state newspapers. The conservative resurgence would move toward the State Conventions and duplicating, for the most part, the same responses. However, the moderates would be successful in controlling the Texas and the Virginia State Conventions; which led to the development of new conservative conventions in both states.
CONCLUSION
Evidence of the success of the conservative resurgence is found in the views of the professors in the SBC seminaries and text books they assign. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, was the editor of one such book, A Theology for the Church. The text book features fifteen different Southern Baptist professors as writers. This book champions the inerrancy48 and infallibility of the Scriptures.49 As to the authority of Scripture, the writer states:
A view of the Bible that affirms its divine inspiration and total truthfulness is of little value if it is not accompanied by an enthusiastic commitment to the Bible’s complete and absolute authority. An approach to the subject of biblical authority must begin with God himself, for in God all authority is ultimately located. God is his own authority. There is noting outside him on which his authority is established. . . .The key to God’s authority is his revelation. In
45 Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles, 81 – 82. 46 James Draper, Jr, Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984). 47 Ergun and Emir Caner, Gen. ed., The Sacred Desk: Sermons of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents. 48Daniel Akin, Gen ed. ,A Theology for the Church (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007), 156 – 160. 49Ibid, 140 & 667. this manner, revelation and authority are seen as two sides of the same reality. God thus declares his authority through his revelation, and he alone is the ultimate source of authority for all other lesser authorities.50
In August 1990, after 10 years of failure a meeting of moderate Baptists in Atlanta was called by Daniel Vestal and Jimmy Allen, the last successful moderate SBC president. Vestal was elected chairman of an interim steering committee that organized a second meeting, which was held in 1991. The Fellowship was officially constituted in May 1991, and is known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).51
One may learn from this controversy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe in the inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. Some pastors and many lay-members may not know how to articulate the theology or definitions. However, they believe that every word found in the Scriptures is true with no error.
This writer was very involved in the controversy since 1980. He was present in many of the meetings led by the ministers mentioned in this thesis. He endured retribution from some denomination workers and experienced verbal attacks from those of the moderate and sometimes very liberal factions. But God blessed the work. However, this writer fears the future. Many young pastors today have been influenced by Post-modernism. They place more emphasis on the experience of worship rather than the truth of Scripture. Some see doctrine as a negative influence in the church. They have no idea or in some cases do not care fot the struggle many endured to keep the denomination biblical and conservative. He prays that in time they will mature and heed Paul’s encouragement to the two young pastors, Timothy and Titus, to preach and teach doctrine.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ammerman, Nancy. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern
Baptist Convention. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
Akin, Daniel L. ed. A Theology for the Church. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, Academic.
2007.
Bush, L. Russ and Tom J. Nettles. Baptist and the Bible. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
Caner, Emir and Ergun. The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the Southern Baptist Convention
Presidents. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 2003.
50 Ibid, 162 – 163. 51Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Webpage. http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/FAQ (accessed July8, 2011).
______, ed. The Sacred Desk: Sermons of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman.2004.
Conner, W. T. Christian Doctrine. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Webpage. http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/FAQ
(accessed July8, 2011).
Cox, Norman Wade, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist,. Nashville: Broadman Press, 2 Vols.
1958.
Criswell, W. A., Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969
Dockery, David S. “The Crisis of Scripture in Southern Baptist Life: Reflections on the Past,
Looking to the Future,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 09, no. 1 (Spring 2005).
Draper, James T. Jr. Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists. Old Tappan, New
Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company. 1984.
Erickson, Millard J. The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. Wheaton: Crossway. 2001.
Garrett, James Leo. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
George, Timothy and Denise. James P. Boyce: Treasures from the Baptist Heritage. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1996.
George, Timothy and Denise. John A. Broadus: Baptist Confessions, Covenants, and
Catechisms. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1996.
26
George, Timothy and Denise. B. H. Carroll: Baptists and Their Doctrines. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers. 1995.
George, Timothy and Denise. Basil Manly Jr.: The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1995.
George, Timothy and Denise. E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms of Religion. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1997.
George, Timothy and Denise. A. T. Robertson: The Best of A. T. Robertson. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1996.
George, Timothy and David S. Dockery. Theologians of the Baptist Tradition. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers. 2001.
Hefley, James C. The Truth in Crisis: The Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Dallas: Criterion Publications, 1986.
Hefley, James C. The Truth in Crisis: Bringing the Controversy Up-to-Date, Vol.2. Hannibal:
Hannibal Books, 1987.
Hefley, James C. The Truth in Crisis: Conservative Resurgence or Political Takeover, Vol.3.
Hannibal: Hannibal Books, 1988.
Hefley, James C. The Truth in Crisis: The State of the Denomination. Vol.4. Hannibal: Hannibal
Books, 1989.
Hobbs, Herschel H. The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville: Convention Press. 1996
Mohler, Albert. “E. Y. Mullins: The Axioms Of Religion,” The Al Mohler Blog, entry posted
July 16, 2009, http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/e-y-mullins-the-axioms-of-religion.
Mullins, Edgar Young. The Christian Religion: In its Doctrinal Expression. Philadelphia: The
Judson Press. 1949.
Pressler, Paul. A Hill On Which to Die: One Southern Baptist’s Journey. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers. 1999.
Sutton, Jerry. The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist
Convention. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 2000.
Tomlin, Gregory, “Garth Pybas, a framer of ’63 BF&M as Bible affirmation, dies at 91,” Baptist
Press News, entry posted December 11, 2006, http:/BPQueryDate.asp?preview=12/11/2006.