Posted on 06/03/2004 9:31:43 AM PDT by BobbyBeeper
They lied plenty about my church and my pastor! I recall one memorable time when they issued a press release stating that Cecil Sherman didn't believe in the miracles of the Bible. The very next Sunday, Dr. Sherman preached on the reality of Biblical miracles just to stick it in their eye!Dr. Sherman is most definitely a theological conservative but he first got on the wrong side of the Southern Baptist Powers That Be back in the 50s when he led the fight to integrate his and other Baptist churches in North Carolina. Back then, blacks who visited a white Southern Baptist church were escorted out the door. Racism has no part in Christianity and Dr. Sherman was acting in accordance with conservative Biblical principles. Despite the fact that Southern Baptists ultimately came around to his position, Dr. Sherman was still considered a rock-the-boat radical.
Yes, especially after what happened in Waco. It was bringing her back to the scene of the crime.I forgot why the event was cancelled, but I suspect that the real reason was that Reno got cold feet about going to Waco.
911 :'(
"A teacher [in a Southern Baptist school] who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired." -- Cecil Sherman.
This is theologically conservative?
They were opposed to the fact that they (Patterson and Pressler) weren't in charge.
I'm sure that the quote is somehow taken out of context. I listened to Dr. Sherman teach and preach virtually every Sunday morning and Wednesday night (and sometimes Sunday nights) for years and I have no doubt that he believes in the virgin birth of Christ.
Yep, I see that you're right.
1. "A recent issue of Baylor University's Lariat newspaper reported that open theism is gaining ground at Baylor's Truett Seminary due to the influence of theologian Roger Olson, who has praised the work of Boyd while calling himself "open to open theism."
http://www.acts1711.com/ets2.htm
2. Russell Dilday
3. Faculty and student exchanges with Harvard Divinity school.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_12_118/ai_73827715
"Lest one think Harvard theology might be moving to the right, it's useful to know that Baylor, once known as the crown jewel in the Southern Baptist educational tiara, as the renowned Harvey Cox, Harvard professor of divinity, described it to Bay Windows, is not the place it used to be. " - http://www.baywindows.com/news/2001/03/29/LocalNews/Good-Grief.Harvard.Hooking.Up.With.Homophobic.Southern.Baptists-60736.shtml
4. "Baylor has disavowed connections with the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years, opting instead to affiliate solely with the moderate General Baptist Convention of Texas. Strengthening ties with Harvard underscores Baylor's resolve to chart a different course from the denomination's ardently conservative leadership."
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_12_118/ai_73827715
5. Read about a church pastored by a fellow who went to Truett. Warning - strong language used by members. Here's one that can be printed on FR: " Like other Ecclesia members, Kevin Hartley refuses to censor himself from what conservative Christians frequently demonize. "
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2003-12-11/news.html
I am obviously not in a position to challenge your assessment of Dr. Sherman but perhaps you might qualify a point:
There are the sort of folks who are full on fundamentalists (or whatever term you want to use) and expect others in positions of authority to be so also;
There are folks who are liberal and thus open to liberal theology;
And there are folks in the middle who, while fundamentalists thenselves, are "tolerant" of liberalism in others (again, speaking of leadership positions)...this would be similar to the "I'd never have an abortion myself but I don't think it's my place to decide for others" line of reasoning.
Now, we can safely assume that if P&P's motives were honorable (and I understand that you don't think that they were) that they would want in positions of authority, not just folks in the third category, but only folks in the first category.
Now, finally, here's my question: Was/is Dr. Sherman a fellow best placed in the third category (the "tolerant" folks) for the first category?
Mind you, I'm not defending the idea that he should have been in the first category, that's a different discussion.
I'm just noticing that it's possible that you could be right that Sherman himself believed in the miracles in the Bible and yet his detractors could also have a point (from their point of view) if Sherman, despite his personal beliefs, could not be trusted to ENSURE that seminary leadership also held that view.
The primary argument for open theism is that it theoretically violates some of the tenets of Calivinism. However, Baptists historically have rejected much of Calvinism.
The same lies that were being spread by fundamentalists about my pastor and my church in the 1980s are being spread by the same people about Truett Seminary today. Please see the article at the end of my post.
My question: if the fundamentalists have truth on their side, then why are they so eager to spread lies about those who oppose them. Is this consistent with Jesus' teachings? I think not.
It appears that the definition of a liberal is anyone, regardless of their theology who opposed the political aspirations of the fundamentalists.
BGCT says churches misled by lies and distortions
By Mark Wingfield
Managing Editor
Have you heard the one about the faculty of Baylor University's Truett Seminary giving an award to a student who wrote a paper denying the virgin birth of Christ?
It's not true, but spreading this lie reportedly was instrumental in persuading one Texas Baptist church to break ties with the Baptist General Convention of Texas and join the alternative Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.
Truett faculty and administration easily could have debunked this lie with the truth--if they had been given a chance in time. But by the time they learned about the false accusation, the damage already had been done.
Such is the case with a number of churches that are being led astray with false information about the BGCT and its institutions, according to BGCT representatives who field inquiries from churches.
"If you hear something that doesn't sound right, don't just believe it," urged Bill Arnold, president of the Texas Baptist Missions Foundation and coordinator of the BGCT's rapid-response team for churches with questions.
"It's easy to call the BGCT and get an answer for anything," Arnold said. "We've got churches throwing away 100 years of cooperation over one negative statement about the BGCT that they never bother to verify.
"Check it out," he pleaded. "Don't just believe this stuff at face value. Confirm it for yourself."
Had the church that was told the lie about Truett Seminary called to ask for the facts, they would have learned that no such award has been given and no such paper has been written. In fact, "we do not give awards for any papers," said David Garland, associate dean.
"We would not give an award for this," Garland said, affirming that Truett faculty indeed believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
As increasing efforts are made to lure Texas churches away from the BGCT and toward the new SBTC, the amount of misinformation being circulated is growing as well, said Arnold and Glenn Majors, director of Cooperative Program services for the BGCT.
Both men have spoken in numerous churches, where they have explained the BGCT's positions and fielded questions. In one sense, those churches offer a glimmer of hope because they at least ask someone from the BGCT to address questions, the two men said.
What's more distressing to BGCT officials is the number of churches making significant decisions about affiliation based on rumors, innuendo and outright lies.
Even when BGCT representatives are invited to churches to answer questions, often the pastor or some other leader has sown seeds of doubt within the congregation beforehand.
One El Paso pastor wrote a two-page letter to his congregation before BGCT representatives arrived, charging that the BGCT has taken money away from SBC seminaries "in order to fund their own newly formed liberal seminaries."
The pastor gave no evidence of liberalism at BGCT-related seminaries.
That often is the case with the sweeping accusations made against the BGCT, confirmed Arnold. He compares the phenomenon to an acronym he read in an article on public relations--FUD, which stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt.
That's exactly what critics of the BGCT are stirring in churches across the state, he said. "There's a real sense of fear of liberalism. People will give up almost anything to protect themselves from liberalism.
"We share that fear of liberalism," Arnold said of the BGCT. "We agree that liberalism is damaging to the work of Christ and that denominations that are liberal lose their focus and direction."
Accusing the BGCT of being liberal is a charge that just won't stick, Arnold asserted. "The fact that you hold to the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message doesn't make you a liberal. If it does, then prior to 2000 there were an awful lot of folks there with you."
When people hurl the nebulous charge of liberalism at the BGCT, he will ask for a specific example. Often, those making the accusation can give no example.
Others spread rumors that have little or no basis in fact.
For example, the wife of a pastor who has been a frequent critic of the BGCT recently told another pastor's wife, "If you want to keep funding abortion, go ahead and give your money to the BGCT."
BGCT officials publicly have stated numerous times that the convention in no way funds or supports abortion. Baptist hospitals affiliated with the BGCT must not perform abortions. The BGCT in annual session has passed anti-abortion resolutions and motions seven times since 1980.
Nevertheless, cold, hard facts such as these are not persuasive to some people, Arnold explained. "For most people, this is an emotional issue; it's not an intellectual issue. For us to answer it with facts is really not speaking to where some folks are."
Even so, BGCT representatives keep trying.
Majors said he has found some success in trying to address complex issues on a simpler level.
For example, he frequently gets questions about why the BGCT in annual session affirmed the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message but not the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message adopted by the SBC.
The difference between the two versions, he explains, is control. The 2000 version attempts to exert more control over churches and denominational employees than the 1963 version, he said.
Differences over the two versions of the Baptist Faith & Message are among the few clear points where individuals may point to two pieces of paper and say, "This is what one group believes and this is what the other believes."
Some critics of the BGCT have taken even solid documentation such as this and attempted to read into it more sinister motivations, Arnold and Majors said.
One Texas pastor wrote to his congregation that by not affirming the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, the BGCT was endorsing homosexual marriage.
In fact, the BGCT has taken no action in favor of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. In 1982, messengers to the BGCT annual session expressed the conviction that "the homosexual lifestyle is not normal or acceptable in God's sight and is indeed called sin." That position has not been amended.
In 1998, the BGCT refused to accept contributions from University Baptist Church of Austin because the church ordained a homosexual.
Yet homosexuality is a recurring theme in accusations against the BGCT and its agencies.
Matt Sciba, prospective student services coordinator for Truett Seminary, said his office receives multiple variations on the homosexuality question, including rumors that there are lesbians on the Truett faculty or among the student body.
Neither accusation is true, Sciba said.
He's familiar with such rumors, because when he first started looking for a seminary to attend about six years ago, people warned him against Truett with similar scary stories, including accusations that Truett faculty "don't believe the Bible."
He went to the seminary's assistant dean and asked him whether the accusations were true. "He said, "I know all the professors, and that's not the case,'" Sciba reported.
What Sciba found at Truett was "the exact opposite" of the rumors he had heard, he said. "The professors here have a very deep respect for the Scriptures and see them as authoritative and inspired."
And Truett is not a haven for lesbians, he added. "That's completely bogus."
Fears of homosexuality have been stirred for several years by papers, pamphlets and videos produced by Missouri layman Roger Moran and distributed in Texas by Wichita Falls layman Bill Streich.
Both Moran and Streich have used "guilt-by-association" tactics to link various BGCT leaders to support for homosexuality and abortion. By their argument, if a person serves on the board of a non-profit entity or civic organization with someone who supports abortion or homosexuality, then that person implicitly supports abortion and homosexuality as well.
Despite appeals from multiple Baptist leaders to stop spreading innuendo, the writings of Moran and Streich continue to circulate in Texas. Their so-called "research" formed a major part of the documentation given by First Baptist Church of Dallas in its decision to dually align with SBTC.
The report of First Baptist Church in turn has been picked up and repeatedly quoted by other churches considering breaking ties with the BGCT.
Rather than relying on the second-hand report of any other church, Arnold and Majors urge Texas churches to seek answers on their own. They and other BGCT representatives are willing to come to any Texas Baptist church and answer questions.
"Every church is important, regardless of their size or location," Arnold said. "We are happy to come to any church or meet with any group."
Editor's note: To request a BGCT representative to speak at your church, call (214) 828-5100. Many resources documenting allegations against the BGCT and answers to those allegations are available online on our Baptist Decision page and at www.bgct.org.
The Baptist Standard
I do not think that "believers" run from controversy any more than Christ did - in fact they should desire the opportunity to run to the challenge of a debate about faith vs religion. The articles you copied were sincere, if not passionate, in their defense of their leaders. The same can be said about the lies we read every day in the newspapers and magazines which dominate our newstands. That does not mean they print the truth without half-lies themselves.
Here's where I am coming from - I've been to "moderate" and "conservative" baptist churches and I prefer the "conservative" brand by 1000%. I attended a CBF church for many years and witnessed first hand the battle and fallout without really realizing the fight was about biblical truth.
To say that baptist do not believe in Calvinism is a load of manure because it is a perfect example of the half-truth you so perfectly denounced. In truth, the moderates do NOT believe in Calvinism or for that matter innerrancy. Your average Sunday pew-warmer has no idea what either of those terms means. They are the difference between light and darkness for believers. It would be like having a discussion about Social Security with someone who does not understand basic free-market economics - they simply do not care as long as the checks come in on time.
What concerns me is that you keep using the term "fundamentalist." Why do you keep using that term? The break was not about fundamentalism (even though the press used it endlessly to tar the SBC as a cousin to the Iranian Fundamentalist who took 44 hostages during the same time period.) In fact it was the evangelical wing of the convention who were at the forefront of the conservative movement. If you can tell me the difference between the two movements, we can discuss this further. If not, I will just chalk you up as either a poseur or a naive drone concerned primarily about the way your pastor got caught in the downdraft of the revolution.
Historical Baptist documents, such as the Baptist Confession of Faith, are unabashedly Calvinistic. Compare the 1689 London confession with the Westminster Confession of Faith. http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html And the almost identical Philadelphia confession of 1742. What passes for mainstream Baptist theology has its roots in the 19th and 20th century.
The article that you posted deals with gays and Truett, a subject which I had not raised. It is a documented fact that when one Truett student came out of the closet, he merely lost his scholarship, but I have seen nothing indicating that he faced expulsion or suspension.
Here's a Quote from the Cooperative Baptist website: "Who has the authority to insinuate that moderation or liberalism is evil? "
First of all, my big problem with the "fundamentalists" is that they knowingly lied about the beliefs and behavior of my former pastor, my former church, and many other people that I either knew well or knew second-hand. That's a fact. You may even recall the convention meeting where they used armed guards to exclude "moderates" from a meeting that they had every right to attend. They slandered people and ruined their careers. The fundamentalists simply wanted power for the sake of power.The real question is this: are these people, who have demonstrated that they have the ethics of rattlesnakes, the kind of leaders that you want for the denomination? I've seen their victims and I say no.
Finally, I can't speak for Dr. Sherman but I would argue that the degree to which a professor or staff member's beliefs are relevant to their employability ought to be related to their job.
Should a professor who does nothing but teach advanced Hebrew language courses be required to believe in the divinity of Christ? No -- that belief doesn't touch upon their teaching. In fact, I think that it's a great idea to have an Israeli Orthodox rabbi teaching Hebrew at a Baptist seminary.
Should a New Testament professor be required to hold traditional orthodox Baptist beliefs? The answer is yes.
Good to see a Mainline Protestant Denomination that takes the Bible seriously unlike the National Council of Churches.
Yeah, so what if good, theologically conservative people were slandered and their lives ruined, right? Never mind if those accused of being liberal weren't really liberal after all. Never mind that baptisms, foreign missionaries, Americans identifying themselves as Southern Baptist, and Baptist giving have all declined in a big way over the past 10 years -- the important thing is that folks like Pressler and Patterson are in power.
That does not mean they print the truth without half-lies themselves.
So show me the "half-lies" that you believe are there.
Here's where I am coming from - I've been to "moderate" and "conservative" baptist churches and I prefer the "conservative" brand by 1000%. I attended a CBF church for many years and witnessed first hand the battle and fallout without really realizing the fight was about biblical truth.
So you really believe that the fight was about biblical truth? What truths were being fought for? Can you give an example of how the "moderate" church that you attended distorted biblical truths?
Perhaps the reason that you never realized the fight was about Biblical truth was because that's not what the fight was about after all. It was a struggle over power -- nothing more, nothing less.
To say that baptist do not believe in Calvinism is a load of manure because it is a perfect example of the half-truth you so perfectly denounced.
Okay, you're right to a certain extent -- I should have been more specific.
Southern Baptists have historically accepted the biblically-based "milder" forms of Calvinism, such as Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Most Baptists though, have historically rejected the "hyper- Calvinist" emphases on the notion that grace is so irresistible that there is no real need to evangelize and that Christ may be offered only to the elect. Baptists have historically believed that salvation is offered to all and that humans have the free will either to accept it or reject it. The more extreme Calvinists believe that some are pre-destined to salvation while others are pre-destined to hell. Those who are to be saved will be saved no matter what we do while those who are destined to hell will go to hell no matter how often and how fervently the gospel is offered to them.
What concerns me is that you keep using the term "fundamentalist." Why do you keep using that term?
That was the original term adopted by the fundamentalists themselves. Read, for example, this site titled We are Fundamentalists, and not Ashamed!
J. Frank Norris, pastor of First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, and his associates ran a periodical in the 1920s and 1930s called The Fundamentalist. They established a Fundamentalist Baptist Seminary in Arlington, Texas. Norris criticized George W. Truett heavily when the latter was pastor at First Baptist Church of Dallas. Norris, however, praised the selection of W.A. Criswell as pastor in 1944. Criswell considered Norris as something of a mentor.
You may prefer another term but the fact is that Pressler, Patterson, Criswell, et al proudly embraced the tactics of those who proudly called themselves Fundamentalists in the first half of the 1900s.
If you can tell me the difference between the two movements, we can discuss this further.
I'll be glad to discuss it further if you tell me the which two movements you're talking about. I presume that one is the fundamentalist -- or, if you insist, "conservative" -- movement. What is the other movement? If you're talking about "moderates," we're not a movement at all but merely historical Southern Baptists.
If not, I will just chalk you up as either a poseur or a naive drone concerned primarily about the way your pastor got caught in the downdraft of the revolution.
Ah, name-calling -- the last refuge of those who refuse to address the facts.
Yes, I'm concerned about how the "conservatives" treated others during the takeover. I consider character slander and ruining people's lives a big deal. Maybe you don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.