The Crisis of Scripture in Southern Baptist Life: Refl ections on the Past, Looking to the Future David S. Dockery

David S. Dockery has served as The Southern Baptist Convention is com- publicly at the famous 1979 Houston Con- President of Union University in Jackson, prised of over 16 million church members vention. The fi fty-year period represents Tennessee, since 1995. Previously he in about 40,000 churches in all fi fty states the period since the death of W. T. Conner, held the post of Vice President and of the United States, making it the larg- the convention’s last “shaping theologian” Academic Dean at The Southern Baptist est evangelical denomination. It is also and generally the time period since the Theological Seminary. Dr. Dockery is the often the most misunderstood Protestant rise of programmatic emphases in the author or editor of over twenty books, group in America. The SBC has tended to Convention’s so-called “glory days” (such including Theologians of the Baptist exist separately from the rest of American as the “million more in ‘54” campaign). Tradition (Broadman and Holman, Christianity because of its sectarianism, 2001) and Shaping a Christian World- its inability to separate itself from South- The SBC Theological Matrix view (Broadman and Holman, 2002). ern culture, its parochialism, and its self- During their fi rst 160 years, Southern He has written numerous articles and suffi ciency, though these indicators are Baptists have changed in several obvious book reviews and serves as the Chair- beginning to show signs of change. ways. What was once a small, Southern, man of the Board for the Council for For roughly the past twenty-fi ve years, predominately white denomination Christian Colleges and Universities in the SBC has been embroiled in a heated has become large, multi-regional, and North America. controversy concerning both theological multi-ethnic. Southern Baptists now wor- issues and denominational polity. As a ship and serve in dozens of languages result, many have become more inten- throughout the United States. tionally self-conscious about the SBC’s The fi rst hundred years were largely theological identity and its theological shaped by a handful of major theologians: heritage. We will not, however, attempt J. P. Boyce (d. 1888), Basil Manly, Jr. (d. to wrestle fully with matters of Southern 1892), John A. Broadus (d. 1895), B. H. Baptist identity and heritage. Instead, we Carroll (d. 1914), E. Y. Mullins (d. 1928), A. will focus on the doctrine of Scripture T. Robertson (d. 1934), and W. T. Conner in Southern Baptist life over the past 125 (d. 1952). From the early years of Boyce to years, as well as think about the pres- the death of Conner, Southern Baptists ent and the future in light of our past. witnessed the diminishing infl uence of We will focus on the past fi fty years in Calvinism, the decline of postmillen- general and the last twenty-five years nialism, the rise of revivalism, and an in particular. The time period of the last advancement in the understanding of twenty-five years has been chosen for Baptist origins and identity. Also there obvious reasons, having been selected was during this time the basic introduc- because it represents the time period since tion into SBC life of such matters as his- the public beginning of the battle for the torical criticism, theistic evolution, and Bible in the SBC, which was launched experiential apologetics. We could say 36 that Southern Baptist theology moved become president of Georgetown College. from a hermeneutic of divine sovereignty The fact that he returned following the with J. P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, and Toy controversy again confi rms Boyce’s Basil Manly to one of personal revelation confidence in Manly’s position on the and experience with E. Y. Mullins, and to subject. a lesser degree with W. T. Conner. From The key to understanding these two these changes a growing consensus giants is to recognize their common emerged by the middle of the twentieth opposition and response to the work of century around the moderate Calvinistic Crawford Howell Toy. Boyce and Man- theologies of Mullins and Conner with ley disagreed with Toy’s adaptation of additional programmatic, pragmatic, and historical critical methods and the prac- revivalistic emphases. Shaped by these tical implications it had for the doctrine shifts and concerns, Southern Baptists of inspiration. Manley’s own work on navigated their way through the first the doctrine of inspiration defi nes their century of their existence. But let us back position. up just a little because when the conserva- Both Boyce and Manly built their tives began to proclaim the importance understanding of Scripture on the work of an inerrant Bible in 1979, many moder- of their Princeton mentors, Archibald ates claimed that this had never been the Alexander and Charles Hodge, as well as Baptist way of understanding the nature Alvah Hovey, and J. L. Dagg, all of whom of Scripture. affi rmed the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In his Abstract of Systematic James P. Boyce (1827-1888) and Theology, Boyce stated that the teachings Basil Manly, Jr. (1825-1892) of the Bible “are matters of pure revela- James P. Boyce and Basil Manly, Jr. tion” and “infallible.”1 For Boyce, infalli- formed half of the original faculty of The bility meant “without error” and there is Southern Baptist Theological Seminary nothing in his writings that would imply when it opened in 1859. Boyce previously that he distinguished between infallibility taught at Furman University and Manly and inerrancy. was principal of the Female Institute of The most important and informative Richmond, Virginia. Both were equally work on the inspiration and authority adept at administrative work as well of Scripture in the shaping early years as teaching theology. While each made of Southern Baptist life was certainly important contributions in several areas, Manly’s The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. Boyce’s major work was his Abstract of Manly argued that an uninspired Bible Systematic Theology (1887) and Manly’s would furnish no infallible standard of primary effort was his The Bible Doctrine thought, no authoritative rule for obedi- of Inspiration (1888). Both volumes were ence, and no ground for confi dence and the results of their class lectures. everlasting hope.2 Manly was careful to Manly’s milestone volume was pub- distinguish inspiration from revelation, lished as a response to the resignation which he defi ned as “that direct divine of Old Testament professor, C. H. Toy. infl uence that secures the accurate trans- Though Manly was an original member ference of truth into human language by of the faculty, he had departed in 1871 to a speaker or writer, so as to be communi- 37 cated to another.” orthodoxy was closely associated with While affi rming plenary inspiration, his doctrine of Scripture. he carefully refuted and rejected any For Carroll the Bible was understood theory of mechanical dictation because “it to be the written revelation of God. This ignores any real human authorship what- affi rmation undergirded Carroll’s entire ever in the Scriptures.” He maintained theology and exegesis of Scripture. While that infallible truth and divine authority noting the close relationship between characterizes every part of scripture. With revelation and inspiration, Carroll also almost a pedantic thoroughness, Manly went to great lengths to differentiate showed the strengths of his own position inspiration from both revelation and on biblical inspiration and refuted the illumination. challenges to his position.3 Revelation is the divine disclosure Inspiration, for Manly, was basically of hidden things. Inspiration is that equated with infallibility, a description gift of the Holy Spirit which enables that could be employed interchangeably one to select and arrange material to a defi nite end and inerrantly record with inerrancy. In doing so, Boyce and it. Illumination, another gift of the Manly, where possible, emphasized the Spirit, enables one to understand a revelation or to interpret the facts of positive aspects of science and biblical an inspired record.5 criticism. They dealt seriously with both the human authorship and the divine Carroll emphasized that inspiration origin of the Bible and kept this tension in insured a perfect standard of instruc- balance. Perhaps with less scholarly eru- tion, conviction, and a profi table work for dition, but with equal or superior impact correction and instruction in righteous- and persuasive power, B. H. Carroll trum- ness.6 peted similar notes in the southwest as the Carroll believed that inspiration did twentieth century began. not apply to the writers, but the writings. He carefully set his argument for biblical B. H. Carroll (1843-1914)4 inspiration within a Baptist context. The B. H. Carroll was the founder and beginning and concluding paragraphs of fi rst president of Southwestern Baptist his work, Inspiration of the Bible, are little Theological Seminary (1908-1914). Unlike more than a word-for-word quotation Boyce and Manly, who were educated at from Article One of the New Hampshire Princeton, Carroll lacked formal training Confession of Faith (forerunner to all in theology. Both at Baylor, where Carroll three versions of the Baptist Faith and taught prior to the founding of South- Message). western Seminary, and at Southwestern, Carroll, like Manly, but to an even Carroll taught the entirety of the English greater degree, built his case by piling Bible in four-year cycles. These lectures up evidence for the Bible’s inspiration have been published in a multiple vol- from the Bible itself. Carroll vehemently ume series entitled An Interpretation of the defended the inspiration of every word in English Bible. Scripture almost excessively, for in doing The Bible was the focal point of B. H. so he even defended the Hebrew vowel Carroll’s career. Carroll’s widespread points. His defense followed both induc- reputation as a champion of Baptist tive and deductive lines as he argued for 38 the necessary relationship between words E. Y. Mullins (1860-1928) and ideas. The bottom line for Carroll E. Y. Mullins served as fourth president was that the very words of the Bible were and professor of theology at Southern chosen by God. Seminary from 1899-1928. Mullins rep- The Southwestern theologian rejected resents a paradigmatic shift in Southern all forms of partial or limited inspiration, Baptist theology. Nowhere is this better saying that “when you hear the silly talk illustrated than his volume on systematic that the Bible contains the word of God theology entitled The Christian Religion in and is not the word of God, you hear a Its Doctrinal Expression (1917).9 Not only fool’s talk.”7 Because Carroll emphasized was his book used as the major textbook at the product of inspiration, he was silent Southern and Southwestern for decades, on the method of inspiration. His focus but Mullins also powerfully infl uenced was on the result of inspiration, which W. T. Conner, who served as professor is an infallible Bible. Carroll, in addition of theology at Southwestern for 39 years. to the description infallible, also used the Mullins’s emphasis on the role of experi- terms inerrant, true, trustworthy, irrevocable, ence and his work on the relationship and irrefragable to describe Scripture.8 He between science and Scripture paved the applied this inerrant quality only to the way for Baptists to raise new questions autographs of the sixty-six books of the about the nature and interpretation of Protestant Bible. Scripture. Though at times Carroll seemed to Mullins remained very much in the work in a vacuum unaware of the changes mainstream of conservative Baptist in the worlds of science and philosophy of thought during his decades of leadership, his day, he nevertheless was unrelenting while also engaging in wide intellectual in his attacks when he spoke about evo- interests and contemporary theological lution and biblical criticism. He claimed formulations. This conservatism became that it was logically impossible for the increasingly apparent during his latter so-called truth of science or philosophy years, and is especially evident in his han- to confl ict with or contradict the truth of dling of the “Fundamentalist-Modernist” the Bible, contending that Darwinism is debates of the early twentieth century. totally incompatible with Christianity. The release of his fi nal major publication, While Boyce and Manly clearly stand Christianity at the Crossroads (1924),10 testi- as giants among Southern Baptists, it is fi es to this shift of emphasis, which moved impossible to measure how enormous the in a different direction from some of his infl uence of B. H. Carroll has been on the colleagues, at least according to the refl ec- life and thought of Southern Baptists. Car- tions of W. O. Carver, who himself seemed roll, perhaps more than any other Baptist more willing to embrace the fi ndings of leader, has served as a model and resource historical criticism. This means that dur- for hundreds of Southern Baptists pas- ing the early years of Mullins’s ministry, tors. Much of the motivation for change when he employed Boyce’s theology book in the SBC over the past twenty-fi ve years as a text for his classes, and the latter reflects Carroll’s beliefs that churches years, Mullins continued the united con- and schools rise or fall according to their sensus regarding Scripture that existed in understanding of inspiration. the SBC during its fi rst 75 years. 39 Mullins represents a signifi cant para- and the experiential emphasis of F. digm shift in methodology as well as D. E. Schleiermacher was Mullins’s emphasis on experience. Mullins change in emphasis in content largely defended the Bible on the undeni- shaped by his context. Some of these shifts able basis of religious experience as included: recorded in the Bible and confi rmed by other believers.12 1. Mullins carefully nuanced state- ments that did not equate the Bible Though in some areas Mullins shifted with revelation in exactly the same the discussion to a new playing fi eld, he way it had been stated by Manly and Carroll. still contended that the Bible is fully reli- 2. For Mullins, the primary charac- able and authoritative. Mullins’s shift is teristic of the Bible is its authority, more of a methodological development not its inspiration or inerrancy. 3. With regular emphasis, Mullins than a content development. He pioneered insisted that the authority of the new ways to theologize in SBC life, though Bible is limited to the religious life in essence he seems to restate, in different of the Christian believer, seemingly overemphasizing the characteristic ways, traditional Southern Baptist tenets. affirmation regarding the Bible’s Nowhere is this better seen than in his authority in “faith and practice.” 4. Mullins, following A. H. Strong, 1923 address to the SBC on “The Dangers was more comfortable with a and Duties of this Present Hour,” where dynamic model of inspiration rather he concluded that “we pledge our sup- than a plenary view, though he quickly commended the plenary port to all schools and teachers who are view’s intent to “preserve and main- thus loyal to the facts of Christianity as tain the authority of the Scripture revealed in the Scriptures.”13 as the very Word of God.” Mullins indicated in his 1913 work on “The Place of the Bible in Christianity” W. T. Conner (1877-1952) that there is little if any difference The role E. Y. Mullins played for between the dynamic or induc- tive method of inspiration and the Southern Seminary was carried on by W. plenary or deductive view. The T. Conner in the Southwest. Conner did difference he claimed is only one of method. his basic work at Baylor University, his 5. Mullins nevertheless emphasized seminary work at Rochester, and addi- the truthfulness of the Bible. His tional study at the University of Chicago. description of the dynamic theory of inspiration including the affi r- Conner began his career at Southwestern mation “that men were enabled to Seminary in 1910 as professor of theoreti- declare truth unmixed with error,” cal theology. While Conner taught almost is indicative of Mullins’s position. While on occasions he seemed everything in the curriculum, his interests uncomfortable with biblical iner- rested primarily in New Testament theol- rancy, he still rejected any charge ogy and systematic theology, particularly of contradictions in the Bible since Holy Scripture cannot dispute what Christology. Conner’s contribution to the it is not intended to affi rm. matter of biblical inspiration and authority 6. Mullins indicated openness to modern science and biblical criti- is found in his discussions of the broader cism, yet he unapologetically criti- subject of revelation found in his works cized “an unscientifi c use of critical on Revelation and God (1936) and Christian methodology that sometimes rejects 14 historical facts and majors on specu- Doctrine (1937). lative reconstruction.”11 Conner’s theology represented a con- 7. The mo st sig n i fi cant shift that bor- fl ation of his mentors: Calvin Goodspeed, rows both from the best of Pietism 40 B. H. Carroll, A. H. Strong, and E. Y. Less concerned with ontology than Mullins. During his tenure, the infl uence function, Connor maintained that the of Carroll waned and that of Mullins Bible’s authority derives not from its status increased; though both shaped his theo- as an inspired collection of inerrant truths logical synthesis. but from its success in leading believers Conner wrote a great deal on revela- toward freedom in Christ. James Leo Gar- tion and authority, but little on the issue rett, Conner’s premier student and inter- of inspiration. He seems to have followed preter, has suggested that Conner’s focus Mullins’s lead on many of the matters on the function of the Bible coincided with related to the Bible, though unlike Mullins the Reformation emphasis on the witness he did not technically affi rm a particular of the Holy Spirit in establishing the inspi- view of the inspiration of the Bible (here ration and authority of Scripture.17 and at other points we see overtures of Much more so than Carroll and Manly, Barth’s growing infl uence on Conner). and like Mullins, Conner continually The key point for Conner, as expressed attempted to engage the issues of the in a 1918 article in a Southwestern Semi- modern world of theology. Conner’s work nary publication on “The Nature of the thus took place on two fronts as he con- Authority of the Bible,” is the authorita- fronted fundamentalism on the one hand tive character of Scripture.15 “The only and liberalism on the other. He sought a way to realize true freedom,” he said, middle road course in his discussions of “is by submission to rightful authority. divine revelation and the relationship of The Bible then is the medium through science and the Bible. Yet, Conner main- which God’s authority is made known.” tained that the “religious teachings of Conner did affi rm the underlying fact of the Bible are not invalidated by a change the Bible’s inspiration. The Scriptures are in scientific views.”18 Conner differed God’s word and God’s work, yet Conner from Mullins when he clearly rejected was careful to allow for human agency. the concept of scientifi c evolution, even As to whether the Bible is a divine book in its theistic form. In Christian Doctrine or a human book, Conner helpfully and he specifi cally stated, “We cannot for a rightly answered, “It is both.”16 moment admit the view of evolution that Did Conner continue the B. H. Carroll leaves God out and holds that without tradition at Southwestern regarding bibli- God’s creative power or superintending cal inspiration and infallibility? Conner’s guidance the universe came uncaused out published works on theology contain no of nothing and has kept on evolving until discussion of either “inerrancy” or “infal- it produced man.”19 libility.” Though Conner could perhaps be Conner again articulated his views described as a functional inerrantist, he on evolution in his response to the fi rst was less comfortable with the term than advocate of evolution in Southern Baptist even Mullins. This functional inerrancy life, William L. Poteat, professor of biol- for Conner did not in any way produce a ogy and president at Wake Forest College. partially inspired Bible. Following Mul- Poteat sought to bring together science lins, though, he did stress that authority and Scripture. In a series of lectures from is focused on the spiritual dimensions 1900-1923, Poteat attempted to articulate of life. an apologetic for the essence of Christian- 41 ity in light of a modern scientifi c world- this organizational and programmatic view. The lectures included “Laboratory growth more than the “Million More in and Pulpit” (J. B. Gay Lectures at South- ‘54” campaign, which resulted in almost ern Seminary, 1900); “The New Peace” 750,000 new Sunday School members in (Hamilton Theological Seminary/Colgate Southern Baptist churches. University, 1905); and “Christianity and With this and other similar successful Its Baggage” (University of North Caro- programs, a movement away from theo- lina, 1923). Portions of these lectures were logical commitments to pragmatic ones, published in his volume Can a Man Be a consciously or unconsciously began to Christian Today? (1925). Conner responded take place. I do not for one minute think it to Poteat with a strongly worded negative was a malicious attempt to undermine the review in the Southwestern Evangel that orthodox theological consensus developed same year.20 during the convention’s fi rst century. The While Conner seemingly relegated dis- pragmatic outlook was what was central cussions regarding theories of inspiration for growing a successful denomination to dogmatic obscurity, he unhesitatingly in the post World War II era. Orthodoxy confessed the Bible as a product of God’s was understood in terms of “doing the revelation, with redemption its central right program” rather than articulating interest and Jesus Christ as its center and the right belief system. What resulted was key to its unity. Though Conner did not not so much a heterodox people but an use the term inerrancy,21 he retreated “a-theological” generation. from discussing any errors in the Bible, Thus when controversies over the while emphasizing the Bible’s divine ori- nature of Scripture entered the public gin and absolute authority in all matters arena in 1961, 1969, and 1979, a theological spiritual.22 understanding was lacking to examine and evaluate such issues.23 Even men 1954 - Present and women who never questioned the Two historic changes were initiated reliability of the biblical message nor ever in the 1950s in Southern Baptist life. The doubted the miraculous claims of the fi rst, and most important for our discus- Bible were confused by terms like “iner- sions, was the open practice of histori- rant” and “infallibility,” which had been cal-critical studies in the curriculums of widely employed in previous generations. Baptist seminaries and colleges. Historical The programmatic and pragmatic empha- criticism had been employed with faith ses of the 1950s help us understand how affirming presuppositions by John A. the paradigm shifted in the SBC from the Broadus and A. T. Robertson—so that early 1950s to the late 1970s.24 both still affi rmed the inerrancy of the Yet, even during the 1950s there were Bible—but that began to change in the ongoing examples that were in basic con- middle of the twentieth century. The other tinuity with the doctrinal affi rmations more wide-ranging shift was the move- of previous generations. Works such as ment to a program-oriented approach those by W. R. White, “The Authoritative to ministry. This shift brought about a Criterion” in Baptist Distinctives (1950); J. B. generation of leaders committed to pro- Lawrence, “The Word and Words of God” grammatic expansion. Nothing typifi es and “The Bible, Our Creed” in Southern 42 Baptist Home Missions (1952, 1957); and J. by Ralph Elliott, as well as the fi rst volume Clyde Turner, “That Wonderful Book” in of The Broadman Commentary (1969).27 Both Things We Believe (1956) indicate the ongo- of these works openly challenged the his- ing commitments to the trustworthiness torical reliability of the Bible. Many of the and authority of Scripture at this time.25 public issues dealt with historical matters These more popular works echoed the of the Old Testament, but the infl uence of commitment to an inerrant Bible found in form criticism was beginning to be seen J. M. Frost and other Baptist leaders at the on the New Testament side as well. Many turn of the twentieth century in the infl u- of these struggles in particular dealt not ential volume, Baptist Why and Why Not. only with the use of historical criticism, Yet, things were changing all around. but with the place of Darwinism in the theological arena. This issue became a Theological Development: major concern for two theological leaders 1952-1979 in this period. Both Dale Moody (1915- Theology in the post-Mullins/Conner 1991) and Eric Rust (1910-1991) pioneered era introduced an innovative and excit- new explorations in the area of the rela- ing time in a denomination coming of tionship between theology and science. age. During this period southern society Together with others, such as Frank Stagg began to take on a new shape. After (1911-2001), a new theological paradigm World War II the New South started to was being forged. This paradigm had little emerge from its previous isolation. The use for traditional Calvinistic or popu- agricultural economy and culture of the lar Dispensational systems of thought. Old South gave way to urban and sub- Nowhere was the “arminianizing” of urban structures. Populations grew and the SBC better exemplifi ed than in the became more pluralistic, employment writings of Moody and Stagg. Moody’s trends destabilized, and racial tension concerns focused on issues of predes- soared. Old South values were being vis- tination and perseverance,28 ultimately ibly disturbed. rejecting both; while Stagg endeavored to Southern Baptists struggled to deal redefi ne the meaning of the cross in terms with these challenges, as well as urban- other than vicarious or substitutionary ization, growing denominational bureau- atonement.29 cracies, territorial expansion, and new Frank Stagg, in the eyes of many, emphases in theology. New tensions were was the leading and most influential created. New questions were raised in this Southern Baptist theologian during this context. In the mid-twentieth century, SBC period, having placed his stamp on two academics wrestled with these questions, theological institutions: New Orleans particularly focused on the rise of biblical Baptist Theological Seminary (1945-64) criticism.26 The practitioners of this new and The Southern Baptist Theological art sought somehow to combine a belief in Seminary (1964-77). Stagg’s commentar- biblical inspiration with biblical criticism. ies and books, including his major work Scholars struggled with the appropriate on New Testament Theology,30 all reject use of biblical criticism, as publicly evi- the traditional orthodox understanding denced in the debates surrounding the of God’s purposes in salvation. Stagg’s publication of The Message of Genesis (1961), understanding of the cross of Jesus Christ 43 represents what could be called an exem- “love-ins,” “sit-ins,” and Vietnam war plary theory of the atonement. For Stagg, protests, the traditionalists lambasted the cross represents the revelation of the these crazy trends and found their own divine self-denial that was always at the emphasis on a completely truthful Bible very heart of God and thus demands that to be extremely useful for bringing sense humans fi nd their authentic existence as out of this chaos. Nowhere was this better God’s creatures. In addition to his treat- illustrated than in the classic volume by ment of the cross, Stagg reinterpreted the W. A. Criswell, published while he was concept of atonement, election, and pre- president of the convention and titled Why destination so as to stand diametrically I Preach the Bible is Literally True33 (though opposed to the heart of the theological it needs to be known that the moderate commitments evident in Boyce, Manly, leadership at Broadman at that time did and Carroll. The only thing God has not want to publish the book and did so predetermined, maintained Stagg, is that with a publisher’s caveat on the opening “whoever is in Christ will be saved.”31 pages). For it was the hope among conser- Though Moody and Stagg greatly vatives that the truth eventually would infl uenced the academic theology of the be victorious, after the instability of that Convention, more traditional theological present age had passed, that spurred them movements held sway in numerous pul- onward. The way to protect the truth in pits across the Convention. The legend- the meantime was through a form of ary pastor of the First Baptist Church of separatism, consistent with either their Dallas, Texas, W. A. Criswell (1909-2002), popular “deeper life” and/or “dispensa- personifi ed this popular grass roots tra- tional” theology, though they remained ditional theology.32 somewhat active in the denomination The SBC thus entered the second half and generally faithful to denominational of the twentieth century divided between programs.34 the progressivism that characterized The progressives, however, marched the moderate leadership in denomina- into the 1960s and 1970s seeking to avoid tional agencies and seminaries and the the negative reaction of the traditional- popular traditionalism in the pulpits. As ists and hoping to gain respect in the most major denominational leadership larger cultural context. Further changes posts were claimed by the progressive in American culture in a post-Watergate or moderate wing of the Convention, the and post-Vietnam era created an anti- traditionalists or conservatives became authoritarian mood among progressives. defensive, and separatistic, focusing Thus another shift away from earlier on their local churches instead of the SBC theology can be seen in a movement denomination-at-large. away from authority. For as W. T. Con- The conservatives tended to retreat to ner maintained, “If God is not a God of this position in opposition to a changing authority, he is not God at all. If God does American culture. They saw the American not reveal himself, religion is impossible. culture of the 1960s heading toward an Therefore, if God reveals himself to man, age of insanity. Living in a time of presi- it must be in an authoritative way.”35 The dential assassinations, racial unrest, civil new generation of progressive leadership rights protests, rock and roll celebrations, was open to dialogue and interaction with 44 other traditions, while evidencing more lications, like those of his good friend W. interest in the social aspects of the gospel A. Criswell, represent the best of Baptist than evangelism, as well as concerns for pastoral theology, which is theology by contemporary, existential, or reader-ori- the church and for the church. ented hermeneutics, and a new involve- On the other hand, Billy Graham ment in the ecumenical nature of the (1918- ),38 the most well known interna- church. They basically rejected all forms tional evangelist of our time, a graduate of fundamentalism and sought to embrace of Wheaton College, and a member of mainline Protestantism, accompanied by the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, the resounding theme that “Baptist means proclaimed his simple gospel message freedom.”36 to thousands. This message was under- During the decade of the 1970s the girded by the evangelist’s commitment progressive leadership of the denomi- to a completely truthful Bible and aug- nation moved in directions that forged mented by a “deeper life” approach to larger gaps between the moderates and the Christian life and an apocalyptic the conservatives. However, two popular eschatology, both of which were widely heroes, who were greatly admired by both accepted and repeated in thousands of groups, helped both groups to maintain churches throughout the SBC. The nation some common ground with each other as a whole during this time of unsettling within the Convention itself, as well as transition was looking for stability and in the larger sphere of American Christi- authority. Many were ready to hear the anity. One of these was Herschel Hobbs; word of God announced with authority as the other was Billy Graham. Herschel demonstrated with Graham’s now famous H. Hobbs37 (1907-1995; often called “Mr. words, “the Bible says.” Into this vacuum Southern Baptist”) preached for eighteen the traditionalists moved, appealing to years on the “Baptist Hour,” was president a fully truthful and authoritative Bible of the Southern Baptist Convention from and contending that this was the mes- 1961-1963, and chaired the 1963 Commit- sage needed to address these turbulent tee of the Baptist Faith and Message. Hobbs times. While the denomination seemingly held to a high view of biblical inspiration, appeared strong, healthy, and poised for while embracing the classical Arminian “Bold Mission” endeavors, the conserva- interpretation of the doctrine of God, so tives charged that liberalism had entered as to affi rm complete divine knowledge the seminaries and colleges and that the of every free human choice, yet in such moderate leadership had moved too far a way that the choices are not prede- from the “orthodox” theology of the grass termined. Still, Hobbs maintained the roots people and the heritage of Baptist security of the believer. In addition to his giants from previous generations. Based Arminian tendencies, Hobbs moved away on these concerns, the SBC entered the from being a pre-millennialist without a decade of the 1980s a very diverse move- program toward a thorough-going amil- ment with a multi-faceted history, faced lennialism. The Arminian and amillen- with its own version of the “modernist- nialist positions were welcomed by those fundamentalist” controversy. Now we espousing the progressive perspective. In turn to these most recent developments. some ways Hobbs’s many theological pub- 45 Recent Developments: 1979-2004 and wrongly equated with a mechanical During the summer of 1979 in Houston, dictation view of inspiration. It was not Texas, the Southern Baptist Convention unusual in some circles for evangelicals, took a major, and at that time unexpected, neo-evangelicals, and fundamentalists theological turn. With the election of to all be lumped together, and quickly Reverend Adrian Rogers, pastor of the dismissed by labeling them as people who Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, held to the dictation theory of inspiration. Tennessee, as convention president, the But now conservatives were calling for a conservatives began a move out of their return to the position of Manly and Car- separatist mentality accompanied by a roll, though now in a more sophisticated clarion call for a commitment to the iner- dress enabled by two decades of discus- rancy of Holy Scripture. From where did sion regarding Scripture in the broader this movement come and why did this evangelical world, culminating in the development take place? Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy The traditionalist’s concern regarding (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Bibli- the full truthfulness and trustworthiness cal Hermeneutics (1982).42 Jimmy Draper, of Scripture and their corresponding SBC president in 1982-83 had called for a distrust of the progressives can be traced meeting between the two parties seek- back to the controversies surrounding the ing reconciliation around a handful of works on Genesis by Ralph Elliott (1961) basic theological agreements, including and The Broadman Commentary (1969), and biblical inerrancy, but this proposal was the widely circulated article by Bill Hull rejected. entitled “Shall We Call the Bible Infal- The Baptist Sunday School Board lible?”39 (akin to Harry Emerson Fosdick’s attempted to address the issue of bibli- famous “Shall the Fundamentals Win?”) cal inerrancy by choosing the doctrine in which he implied “no” to his question. of Scripture as the convention’s doctrine The traditionalist’s approach to Scripture study for 1983. Russell Dilday, then presi- had been articulated by W. A. Criswell in dent of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, his Why I Preach the Bible is Literally True was invited to write the doctrine book (1969), but the gauntlet had been laid (The Doctrine of Biblical Authority),43 which down by Harold Lindsell’s Battle for the was published in 1982. Dilday carefully Bible in 1976.40 affi rmed the inspiration and authority of But with the rise of historical criticism, the Bible, while pointing out the weak- new approaches to biblical interpreta- nesses of the inerrancy position. This, tion and new ways of describing the however, fueled the fi res even further, Bible’s nature were articulated.41 Many supporting perceptions that leaders in progressives were no longer comfortable the seminaries and those writing for the describing the Bible in the tradition of A. Baptist Sunday School Board publications T. Robertson, J. M. Frost, B. H. Carroll, were not supportive of biblical inerrancy. John Broadus, or Basil Manly. As a mat- The book—instead of helping—propelled ter of fact the doctrine of inerrancy was the controversy to a new level. virtually absent in SBC academic circles During the 1970s and 1980s a number from the late 1940s to the 1980s, usually of signifi cant works were penned either being relegated to obscurantist thought challenging or upholding the inerrancy of 46 Scripture. An important work by conser- on works of peripherally-related or former vatives during this time was Baptists and Southern Baptists like Clark Pinnock’s A the Bible by Russ Bush and Tom Nettles, New Reformation and Biblical Revelation47 which attempted to show that biblical and Carl F. H. Henry’s six-volume set, inerrancy had been a representative, if God, Revelation and Authority,48 pressed not dominant, view in the Baptist tradi- on to re-establish the doctrinal consen- tion.44 The book met with mixed reviews sus of previous generations. Ironically, and was countered by a series of essays when viewed from today’s perspective, edited by Rob James, entitled The Unfet- it is impossible to calculate the infl uence tered Word, which attempted to show that Clark Pinnock had on the conservative both the biblical position and historical resurgence in the SBC in the 1970s and interpretation in Baptist life differed from early 1980s. the Bush-Nettles proposal.45 In 1986 the Glorieta Statement by the Several presentations at the annual six seminary presidents recognized the meetings of the National Association of theological imbalance in their faculties Baptist Professors of Religion, seemingly and made two declarations: That the year after year, tried to show that Baptists Bible does not err in any area of reality had affi rmed biblical inspiration, but had and that they would begin to hire bibli- not advocated inerrancy. But as we have cal inerrantists to begin to bring balance seen, this could only be done by selec- to their faculties. From this came the tive readings of Mullins and Conner as famous “Covenant Agreement” at South- normative for all that went on before and ern Seminary in 1991 that resulted in the after their time. Some tried to differenti- initial changes at that institution prior ate between infallibility and inerrancy, to the naming of R. Albert Mohler, Jr. as accepting the former and rejecting the president in 1993. latter. A carefully worded article repre- The convention again chose the doc- senting this position was written in the trine of Scripture for its annual doctrine Review and Expositor in 1986 by Roy L. study in 1992 as it had just a decade earlier. Honeycutt (who served as President of A comparison of the 1992 convention doc- Southern Seminary from 1982-93), entitled trine study book with the book published “Biblical Authority: A Treasured Baptist a decade earlier by Russell Dilday is indic- Heritage.”46 Here he rejected inerrancy, ative of these changes. This work, entitled suggesting that it was not a position The Doctrine of the Bible,49 while somewhat consistent with Baptist tradition, while interactive with modern thought as appro- claiming that the Bible was authoritative priate for a predominantly lay readership, and binding in “all matters of faith and solidly reaffi rmed the inerrancy of Scrip- practice.” ture, echoing the consensus viewpoint For the next decade, it would not be refl ective of earlier Baptist theologians. unfair to say that more heat than light was Yet, the study was not just a restatement generated by both sides; though steadily of Manly and Carroll. the inerrancy position gained a hearing The 1992 doctrine book maintained and convention-wide predominance. that the Bible attests to its own inspiration Many thought inerrancy to be only a polit- which can be characterized as plenary ical position, but conservatives, building and concursive. While affi rming plenary 47 inspiration, there was an awareness of Baptists to forge a new consensus for a contemporary linguistic theory that sug- new century—a consensus grounded in gests that meaning is best understood at a fully truthful and authoritative Bible. the sentence level and beyond. Before concluding it should be helpful Based on a plenary view of inspira- to summarize this view of Scripture—to tion of Scripture, this view maintained move from historical description to theo- the inerrancy of Scripture and stressed logical prescription. that what the Bible affi rms is completely true. Because the Bible is a divine-human Toward a Model of Biblical book, the 1992 study recognizes that the Inspiration for Baptist Life interpretive tools of literary and historical If the words of Scripture are God- criticism can be employed with care and breathed, it is almost blasphemy to faith-oriented presuppositions carrying deny that the Bible is free from error in on the best of the Broadus-Robertson that which it is intended to teach and tradition in Baptist life. Consistent with infallible in the guidance it gives. Our the Chicago Statements of 1978 and attitude toward the doctrine of biblical 1982, this view of Scripture served as inspiration is one of accepting God’s the foundation for the publication of the testimony. When faced by diffi culties in forty-volume New American Commentary and objections to biblical inspiration, we series.50 This position was argued by will infer that the problem is our failure the conservatives in Beyond the Impasse? to comprehend God’s testimony to make (1992) and expounded and expanded in truth plain, and will be driven back to a Christian Scripture (1995). These volumes closer rethinking of the matter in light provided the theological underpinnings of a closer study of the biblical evidence. for the conservative resurgence during Thus in our dealings with the doctrine of the period. Scripture or the doctrine of God it is the Such a view of Scripture, which now sifting and weighing of Scripture in light generally characterizes the leadership in of the history of doctrine that shapes our the SBC, places Southern Baptists squarely convictions. Certainly we learn from the within the evangelical world. This cer- debates between Arius and Athanasius tainly distances the SBC at the begin- and between Pelegius and Augustine, all ning of the twenty-fi rst century from the of whom appealed to Scripture, that our famous 1976 statement by then Christian goal is the careful and faithful reading Life Commission executive, Foy Valen- of Scripture that has ultimately shaped tine: “Southern Baptists are not evangeli- the consensus of faith through the ages. cals. That’s a Yankee word.”51 As we enter This is how all doctrinal advance has the twenty-fi rst century, the ten percent of been made throughout the history of the leftward learning progressives in the SBC church. This is also how a more true and have left the convention. Approximately full understanding of the theological chal- ten percent or more of the membership of lenges for the twenty-fi rst century can be the SBC continue to want to wage a battle reached as well. (primarily at the state convention level) A confession of biblical inerrancy is that has seemingly been decided. But now an important safeguard, a necessary but is the time for a large majority of Southern insuffi cient statement for the church to 48 maintain consistent evangelical instruc- frequently maintained that in inspiration, tion and theological method, which is God utilized the culture and conventions needed for an orthodox statement, in the of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God essential matters of salvation, Christology, controls in His sovereign providence; it and the doctrine of God. We recognize is a misinterpretation to imagine other- that inerrancy, as a corollary of inspira- wise. tion, is a foundational issue on which Thus we must interpret Scripture in our other theological building blocks are laid. confessional setting recognizing that it is, Recognizing the importance of the issues indeed, the inspired and inerrant word of we can suggest the following defi nition God. We must affi rm the real possibility of inerrancy: that the entire biblical text in its canonical context contains a theological meaning When all the facts are known, the Bible (in its autographs) properly that is not unlike what has been called interpreted in light of which cul- sensus plenior. Though we must certainly ture and communication means focus on the original historical meaning had developed by the time of its composition will be shown to be of the text intended by the Spirit-directed completely true (and therefore not author, yet because of the canonical shape false) in all that it affi rms, to the degree of precision intended by the and divine nature of the biblical text, a author, in all matters relating to God passage may have a depth of meaning and his creation. beyond the human author’s intention or the understanding of the original readers. The defi nition is complex, but it seeks Thus we need to read the Bible literally, simultaneously to be faithful to the phe- historically, christologically, and eccle- nomena of Scripture as well as the theo- siologically. logical affi rmations in Scripture about the The pressures from the academy and veracity and holiness of God. a postmodern culture will continue to While affi rming the Bible’s full author- create signifi cant challenges in our efforts ity, which means that its full message to rediscover an evangelical consensus. speaks prescriptively and normatively to A model of dynamic orthodoxy must be us today, we still recognize the temporal reclaimed. The orthodox tradition must and cultural distances that separate us be recovered in conversation with Nicea, from Scripture and understand that cer- Chalcedon, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, tain teaching may be contextually limited Wesley, the Pietists, and the Confessional- (e.g., 1 Tim 5:23; 1 Cor 16:20; Eph 6:5). Yet, ists. In sum, our Baptist identity must be because the Bible is divinely inspired, the rooted in the consensus fi dei of the Chris- underlying principles are normative and tian church. applicable for the church today as they Our Baptist identity must be character- were in the fi rst century. ized by a clear and balanced affi rmation of We affirm that canonical Scripture the Bible’s truthfulness and trustworthi- should always be interpreted on the ness. Those who fi nd the term inerrancy basis that it is infallible and inerrant. In problematic must fi nd a way to address determining what the biblical author is adequately the issue of the Bible’s com- asserting in each passage, we must pay plete truthfulness. Underlying this com- the most careful attention to its claims mitment is a hermeneutic of acceptance and character as a human production. It is 49 over against a hermeneutic of suspicion. 2. Bad Harmonizations—It often Baptists have historically refl ected con- forces the Bible to say what is does not say with bad harmonizations. siderable diversity. While we do not hold 3. Bad Interpretation—It often is our doctrinal uniformity as a goal, as a preoccupied with what are actually minor aspects of the Bible, and a fail- result of the past twenty-fi ve years, we do ure to focus on its central message. call for renewed parameters regarding the 4. Bad Theology—The Bible is often inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of treated as merely a source of infor- mation; thus its Christocentric Scripture as well as a reestablishment and dimension is missed. reaffi rmation of the Baptist theological center as we look to the next twenty-fi ve Still Packer maintains the need to years. affi rm inerrancy because when rightly To describe Baptist life as biblical means understood it affi rms biblical inspiration, we confess the full inspiration of Scrip- determines interpretative method, and ture; thus we can contend for the gospel safeguards biblical authority—and like as truth because it has been revealed to him—we also affi rm the necessity of such us in Holy Scripture. It is in this sense a confession for our future together.52 that Baptists in the past, and hopefully in the future, can be called “the people Conclusion/Future Agendas of the Book.” Our brief survey of the doctrine of Southern Baptists cannot give up the Scripture in Southern Baptist life has affi rmation that the Bible is totally true focused on developments and shifts dur- and trustworthy because this founda- ing the twentieth century. A paradigm tional commitment serves all other essen- shift that has come almost full circle has tial affi rmations of the Christian faith. A taken place regarding the doctrine of commitment to a completely truthful and Scripture. A shift demonstrating consider- fully authoritative Bible is the fi rst step able continuity with the views that Boyce, toward healing the deadly sickness in Manly, Frost, and Carroll maintained today’s theological and ethical trends that in the early years of the SBC refl ects an threaten the very heart of the Christian obvious discontinuity from the progres- faith and message. This commitment is sive trajectories adopted and advocated grounded in Holy Scripture itself, which in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Thus it is is the norma normans non normata. important for us not to lose sight of our Though not a Baptist, J. I. Packer has heritage. Knowing the family history is identified four problems linked with certainly one way of avoiding past errors some models of inerrancy that we must and preparing to face the future. Woody not ignore. His years in a leading role in Allen claims that history repeats itself similar discussions in the broader evan- because “nobody listens the first time gelical world in America and England around.” While there are several nuanced make his voice a credible one worthy of approaches to Scripture in the SBC, which our attention. He suggests inerrancy is I have discussed in several other places, often misunderstood because of generally it can be observed that the large, large majority of Southern Baptists today 1. Bad Apologetics—It is sometimes built on faulty rationalistic apolo- believe the Bible is God’s truthful, written getics. word. Likewise, they believe it can and 50 should be trusted in all matters. What our commitment to the truthfulness ENDNOTES does this say about our theological of Scripture. While recognizing that 1J. P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic identity? this commitment is necessary, it must Theology (Philadelphia: American The past twenty-five years of be observed to be insuffi cient by itself Baptist Publication Society, 1887), controversy have been fueled by to accomplish these theological and 48, 137. A helpful introduction to the political and personal differences, apologetic priorities. While holding early formation of Southern Baptist this cannot be denied, but the focal fast to the divine inspiration and thought can be found in W. Wiley point of the controversy has been full authority of God’s written word Richards, Winds of Doctrine: The theological, emphasizing either the we need now to prioritize primary Origins and Development of Southern affi rmation or denial of the truthful- doctrines around which a new con- Baptist Theology (Lanham, MD: Uni- ness and authority of the Bible with sensus can be built. versity Press of America, 1991). attention focused on the seminaries, Together we can help churches 2Basil Manly, Jr., The Bible Doctrine of and to a lesser degree on the col- enable and educate church mem- Inspiration (New York: A. C. Arm- leges and universities, based on B. H. bers and enhance worship in order strong and Sons, 1888), 15. Carroll’s exhortation that churches to bring about theological renewal 3Ibid., 37. and schools rise or fall based on their for the church of Jesus Christ, so 4See James Spivey, “B. H. Carroll,” view of biblical inspiration. The SBC that believers can grow and live in in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, of the twenty-fi rst century has clearly obedience to the command of our ed. Timothy George and David S. decided that the truthfulness of the Lord who has commissioned us to Dockery (Nashville: Broadman & Bible cannot be ignored, de-empha- evangelize, disciple, baptize, and Holman, 2001), 163-80. sized, or eliminated, as seen in the teach. The same Lord who 2000 years 5B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of third edition of the Baptist Faith and ago commissioned us still calls us the English Bible (New York: Revell, Message, which was overwhelmingly and gifts us to teach and equip his 1913), X, 43. approved at the annual convention in people for service, and move them 6B. H. Carroll, Inspiration of the Bible Orlando in June of 2000. This posi- to maturity and unity. That must (New York: Revell, 1930), 42. tion on the Bible is the focus of the remain the primary task and mission 7Ibid., 20. developing new theological center of the Southern Baptist Convention in 8Ibid., 25-54. in the SBC. It has now been heartily general, and Southern Baptist theo- 9E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion affi rmed, but it must continue to be logical education in particular, both in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadel- carefully clarified since the issue now and in the future. As we build phia: Judson, 1917). remains an emotional one, some- upon this new and shaping con- 10E. Y. Mullins, Christianity at the times still misunderstood and often sensus and the broadly recognized Crossroads (Nashville: Baptist Sun- still misrepresented. and re-established commitment to day School Board, 1924). Theology in the SBC continues in the inspiration, truthfulness, and 11Mullins, Christianity at the Cross- transition, moving toward a more authority of Scripture, we enter a new roads, 176. conservative and (I would say) century needing to join hands with 12I am appreciative of the analysis of evangelical orthodox consensus. The like-minded believers both within E. Y. Mullins in the Ph.D. disserta- issues that now must be addressed and outside of Southern Baptist life tion by Dwight Moody, “Doctrines are theological as we reaffi rm a full- so that with heads, hearts, and hands, of Inspiration in the Southern orbed historical orthodoxy that will we can seek to obey and follow the Baptist Theological Tradition” (Ph. serve the church and a biblically divinely inspired, completely truth- D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theo- informed apologetic that can engage a ful, and fully authoritative written logical Seminary, 1982). shifting postmodern culture. In order word of God.53 13See R. Albert Mohler, Jr., compiler, for this to happen we need to reaffi rm E. Y. Mullins: The Axions of Religion 51 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, tary (Nashville: Broadman, 1969). though their critical conclusions at 1997), 19-20. The 1979 Southern Baptist Con- times detracted from their overall 14W. T. Conner, Revelation and God vention initiated the conservative positive contributions. (Nashville: Broadman, 1936); and resurgence in the SBC and has been 28See Dan Stiver, “Dale Moody,” in idem, Christian Doctrine (Nashville: referred to as the “inerrancy contro- Baptist Theologians, ed. Timothy Broadman, 1937). versy.” See the response in Ralph H. George and David S. Dockery 15W. T. Conner, “The Nature of the Elliott, The “Genesis Controversy” and (Nashville: Broadman, 1990), 539- Authority of the Bible,” Southwest- Continuity in Southern Baptist Chaos 66. ern Journal of Theology 2 (October (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1993). 29See the penetrating analysis of 1918): 11-17. 24This is not to fi nd fault with the pro- Stagg’s theology in Robert Sloan, 16Conner, Christian Doctrine, 40. grammatic emphases in themselves, “Frank Stagg,” in Theologians of the 17See James Leo Garrett, “W. T. Con- for they helped to create the strong Baptist Tradition, 257-78. ner” in Theologians of the Baptist church programs that gave identity 30See Frank Stagg, New Testament The- Tradition, 201-15. to Southern Baptists as a people and ology (Nashville: Broadman, 1962). 18W. T. Conner, A System of Christian provided a framework for effective 31Ibid., 88; see the discussion in Paul Doctrine (Nashville: Sunday School outreach. A. Basden, “Predestination,” in Has Board of The Southern Baptist Con- 25W. R. White, “The Authoritative Our Theology Changed?, 62-65. vention, 1924), 116. Criterion,” in Baptist Distinctives 32See Paige Patterson, “W. A. 19Ibid., 300. (Nashville: Convention Press, 1950), Criswell,” in Theologians of the Bap- 20W. T. Conner, Review of Can a Man 11-20; J. B. Lawrence, “The Word tist Tradition, 233-56. Be A Christian Today? by William and Words of God,” Southern Baptist 33W. A. Criswell, Why I Preach that L. Poteat in Southwestern Evangel 9 Home Missions 24 (May 1953) 3-4, 15; the Bible is Literally True (Nashville: (1925): 13-24. idem, “The Bible, Our Creed,” Home Broadman, 1969). 21See his review of Fundamentals of Missions 28 (March 1957) 8-9; and 34See Helen Lee Turner, “Funda- Christianity, by F. C. Patton in South- J. Clyde Turner, “That Wonderful mentalism in the Southern Baptist western Evangel 10 (May 1926): 45. Book,” in Things We Believe (Nash- Convention: The Crystallization of 22I am largely dependent for the ville: Convention Press, 1956) 1-15. a Millennialist Vision,” (Ph.D. diss., understanding of Conner’s works 26I have profited from the social University of Virginia, 1990). on James Leo Garrett, Jr., “Theol- analysis in James Spivey, “The 35See Conner, Revelation and God. ogy of Walter Thomas Conner” Millennium,” in Has Our Theology 36See Walter B. Shurden, The Struggle (Th.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Changed?, 230-262. for the Soul of the SBC (Macon, GA: Theological Seminary, 1954). Also, 27The controversy surrounding The Mercer, 1992). see L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles, Broadman Bible Commentary, edited 37See Herschel Hobbs, My Faith and Baptists and the Bible (Nashville: by Clifton J. Allen, should not Message (Nashville: Broadman, Broadman & Holman, 1999); and detract from the recognition that 1993). Dwight A. Moody, “The Bible,” in Southern Baptists had now pro- 38See J. D. Woodbridge, “William Has Our Theology Changed?, ed. Paul duced a major work of biblical (Billy) Graham” in Dictionary of Basden (Nashville: Broadman & scholarship that provided exegetical Baptists in America, ed. Bill Leonard Holman, 1998), 7-40. help for many pastors, students, and (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity 23The 1961 controversy was over Bible teachers. The contributions of Press, 1994), 135-137. Ralph Elliott’s Message of Genesis Roy Lee Honeycutt, Frank Stagg, 39See William Hull, “Shall We Call the (Nashville: Broadman, 1961). The William Hull, Jack MacGorman, Bible Infallible?” The Baptist Program 1969 controversy focused on volume Marvin Tate, and Ray Summers (December 1970): 5-6, 17-18, 20. one of The Broadman Bible Commen- were of especially high quality, 40See Harold Lindsell, The Battle for 52 the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Authority: A Treasured Baptist neth L. Woodward, et al., “Born 1976). Heritage,” Review and Expositor 83 Again! The Year of the Evangelicals,” 41The use of historical criticism in (1986): 605-622. Newsweek, 25 October 1976, 76. and of itself can be very positive. 47See Clark Pinnock, A New Ref- 52J. I. Packer, “Notes on Biblical Iner- However, some methodological ormation (Tigerville, SC: Jewell, rancy,” Lecture 12 (Regent College, approaches initially carried with 1968); and idem, Biblical Revela- 1978); also see idem, The Evangelical them anti-supernatural biases that tion (Chicago: Moody, 1971; repr., Identity Problem, Latimer Study 1 resulted in denying the veracity of Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & (Oxford Latimer House, 1978), 5; Holy Scripture. Such was the case Reformed, 1985). and God Has Spoken (Grand Rapids: with the Message of Genesis. Positive 48See Carl F. H. Henry, God, Rev- Baker, 1988). employment of critical approaches elation and Authority (6 vols.; Waco, 53Much of the discussion in this can be found in David A. Black and TX: Word, 1976-83; repr., Wheaton: address is taken from and expanded David S. Dockery, eds., Interpreting Crossway, 1999). in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition the New Testament (Nashville: Broad- 49See David S. Dockery, The Doctrine and also an address on biblical man and Holman, 2001). of the Bible (Nashville: Convention, authority given at the inaugural 42Both statements were produced 1991). This work articulated a view conference of the Carl F. H. Henry and signed by over one hundred of inerrancy faithful to the work Center for Christian Leadership of evangelical scholars. The product of Manly, Carroll, Broadus, and Union University in 2002. of the 1978 conference can be found Robertson, and infl uenced by the in the volume edited by Norman more recent theological construc- Geisler, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: tions of Millard Erickson and Carl Zondervan, 1979). The second con- F. H. Henry. This work has been ference resulted in the work edited amplifi ed and expanded in David S. by Earl Radmacher and Robert Dockery, Christian Scripture (Nash- Preuss, Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and ville: Broadman & Holman, 1995). the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zonder- 50New American Commentary, eds. van, 1984). Southern Baptists who David S. Dockery and E. Ray Clen- signed the “Inerrancy” (1978) state- denen (Nashville: Broadman, 1991-). ment included L. Russ Bush, Larry About thirty of a projected forty Walker, and L. Paige Patterson. volumes have been published, and Southern Baptists who signed the have been greeted by warm reviews “Interpretation” (1982) statement and honors, demonstrating both the included Bush, Walker, and David quality of scholarship and depth of S. Dockery. commitment. Each writer agreed to 43Russell Dilday, The Doctrine of Bibli- write in accord with the Chicago cal Authority (Nashville: Convention Statement on Inerrancy (see edito- Press, 1982). rial preface to each volume). The 44L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles, volumes by John B. Polhill (Acts), Baptists and the Bible (Chicago: Robert Stein (Luke), and Duane A. Moody, 1980; rev. ed., Nashville: Garrett (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song Broadman & Holman, 1999). of Songs) have been nominated for 45See Rob James, ed., The Unfettered Gold Medallion Awards by the Word (Waco, TX: Word, 1987). Evangelical Press Association. 46See Roy L. Honeycutt, “Biblical 51See Foy Valentine, quoted in Ken- 53