Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The Oklahoma Baptist Centennial (Part 2)


Oklahoma Baptists celebrated their centennial anniversary in November. Certainly, the BGCO can be proud of many achievements through the first 100 years of their existence. In a recent editorial ("Back to the Future" Links to archived articles are no long available.) in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger, BGCO executive director, Anthony Jordan, sounded a strange note. Comparing the BGCO to the church in Ephesus, he wrote:

As was true in the words of our Lord to the church at Ephesus, we must return to our first love. Nothing among us must take preeminence over a passionate love for our Savior.

Pardon me, but when did Oklahoma Baptists lose their first love? At what point in their history did Oklahoma Baptists cease to have a passionate love for their Savior? I haven't been an Oklahoma Southern Baptist now for more than three years, but I can't remember a single example of an Oklahoma Baptist (church, pastor, or layman) who strayed from possessing a passionate love for Christ. I have no idea what Jordan is talking about when he writes these words.

He went on to write:
Although our church buildings look different, our ministries have varying shapes and our worship styles have changed, the future of Oklahoma Baptists is centered in a return to the biblical and powerful fundamentals of the past. A love for Jesus, a passion for the lost, a commitment to planting churches and a generosity in our mission support are keys to a dynamic future.

At what point in their history did Oklahoma Baptists stray being a "biblically centered" denomination? At what point in their history did Oklahoma Baptists depart from the "fundamentals of the Baptist beliefs of the past"? I can't answer the questions. I don't know what Dr. Jordan has in mind, but I don't remember that Oklahoma Baptists ever departed from being a biblically centered state convention. Nor I remember anything about Oklahoma Baptists departing from the fundamentals of the past. But I do know when Oklahoma Baptists began the slide into mean-spirited fundamentalism. It began early in the last decade of the first 100 years of Oklahoma Baptist history.

The rise of mean-spirited fundamentalism in Oklahoma occurred simultaneously with the birth of the Cooperating Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma. Southern Baptists began moving toward fundamentalism in 1979 when Adrian Rogers was elected as the first SBC president in the takeover of the denomination. W. A. Criswell, Paul Pressler, and Paige Patterson convinced the rank and file of Southern Baptists into believing that their denomination was sliding head-long into liberalism.

Of course the notion that Southern Baptists were being threatened by liberalism is a myth. While a great many Southern Baptists followed the takeover leaders toward narrow fundamentalism, a great many Southern Baptists, including myself, remained faithful to what we had always believed. Those who remained faithful to the traditional Southern Baptist beliefs came to be known as "moderates." Moderate Oklahoma Baptists rejected the rhetoric of the fundamentalists. They did not change their views about the Bible. They rejected the narrow theory of biblical inerrancy. They did not change their views about the infallibility of the Bible. They did not change their views concerning missions, ecclesiology, and theology.

Anthony Jordan's attitude toward moderate Baptists was not Christlike. His passionate dislike for Cooperative Baptists and Mainstream Baptists wasn't pretty. He has a passionate distaste for moderate Oklahoma Baptists because they did not fall into line with the with the neo-fundamentalism that came with the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. He doesn't understand that there was a major shift toward narrow fundamentalism among Southern Baptist thinking over the past quarter century.

The fundamentalist takeover led to a dismissive attitude toward those who rejected the modern ideas about biblical inerrancy. Those who rejected neo-fundamentalism were considered to be liberals of the worst order. Those who rejected the inerrancy theory of the Bible were systematically demeaned and excluded. Subscribing to the inerrancy theory of the Bible became a test of fellowship for the fundamentalists. After the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was adopted, those who openly opposed the new statement of faith (which functioned more like a creed than a statement of faith) were marginalized and pushed aside. They were purged from leadership positions in Oklahoma Baptist life. They were blackballed, ignored, fired, and demeaned. I know this to be true, because I experienced it first hand.

Dr. Jordan wrote, concerning the first century of Oklahoma Baptist life:
These 100 years of history are marked by the hand and blessing of Almighty God. He has chosen to bless His people with strength in numbers, resources and influence.
I believe God did bless Oklahoma Baptists through the first 75 years of their history, God did bless them strength, numbers, and resources. But that's only part of the story. There's another side to the story. And it isn't as pretty. The next post will delineate part of the other side of the story.

12 comments:

Jim Paslay said...

David,

I am asking you to read Bruce Prescott's post on Keith Smith and then respond as to whether you are in agreement with him about homosexuality. Does God gloss over homosexuality as long as the individual is okay on other social issues? Can you really work your way into heaven as Bruce seems to imply? I would really like a response since Bruce won't allow people to comment on his blog unless he agrees with them.

Moderates have griped and complained about "fundamentalists" and their narrow views when it comes to Scripture, but it has been the soft, squishy views of moderates that have turned heads.

Oklahoma Baptists have long been strong biblical inerrantists and have held to a conservative approach to Scripture. Although there were no problems on the whole within our state convention, there were significant theological problems in several seminaries and among so called "moderates". You and others like to dismiss that argument but even the Peace Committee back in the 1980s agreed that there were theological problems. You can disagree with me and other conservative pastors but I vehemently disagree with you about being duped. My question is how long will moderates whine and complain about the past?

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
I am asking you to read Bruce Prescott's post on Keith Smith and then respond as to whether you are in agreement with him about homosexuality. Does God gloss over homosexuality as long as the individual is okay on other social issues? Can you really work your way into heaven as Bruce seems to imply? I would really like a response since Bruce won't allow people to comment on his blog unless he agrees with them.

I can't, and won't, speak for Prescott. But yes, I did read his blog message about Ken Smith. I don't know Smith. Never met him. All I know about him is what Prescott wrote about him.

I am opposed to homosexual leadership in the church but I am not a homophobe. Homosexuality has little or nothing to do with a person's relationship with God. Thus, I am not willing to consign Smith, or any gay rights activist, to hell. I don't know what his relationship with God was. I am not the judge of the salvation experiences of others. I don't judge how others relate to God. I don't require people to agree with me on theological or moral issues in order to call them brothers/sisters in Christ.

That said, I can commend Smith's advocacy for the impoverished, the disabled, the working poor, the dispossessed, and the outcast. From what I read about him, he did a whole lot more than a lot of professed Christians regularly do. We have far too many fundamentalists who smugly condemn homosexuals for doing Christ like deeds. They act as though only fundamentalists are going to make it past the pearly gates.

As I said above, I don't know what Smith's relationship with God was. But if he was a believer in Christ, he probably made it past the pearly gates. I have an idea there will be a lot of people in heaven that you think won't be there. Smith may be one of those persons...

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
Moderates have griped and complained about "fundamentalists" and their narrow views when it comes to Scripture, but it has been the soft, squishy views of moderates that have turned heads.

So the moderates have soft, squishy views about the scriptures? That's an interesting observation. Has it ever occurred to you that the moderates just might be closer to the teachings of Christ than the fundamentalists? Says who that the fundamentalists have the exclusively correct interpretation of the entire Bible? Says who that all Baptists are required to agree with the fundamentalists on all theological issues? Says who that diversity is evil?

The fundamentalists need to wake up and realize that there are ways than the fundamentalist way to interpret God's written word. I am confident that the fundamentalists aren't God's last and only hope to save the world...

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
Oklahoma Baptists have long been strong biblical inerrantists and have held to a conservative approach to Scripture. Although there were no problems on the whole within our state convention, there were significant theological problems in several seminaries and among so called "moderates".

Sorry, Jim, but Oklahomans have not been "strong biblical inerrantists" for a long period of time. The inerrancy view of the Bible is relatively modern, just slightly more than a quarter century old.

The inerrancy controversy among Southern Baptists, including Oklahoma Southern Baptists, did not begin until after the takeover started. Prior to the takeover, which began in 1979, the word "inerrancy" wasn't even on the radar. It wasn't until the fundamentalists began to demand that all Southern Baptists agree with their interpretation of the Bible that inerrancy became a problem.

As to your claim that there were no problems on the whole within our state convention, I disagree. There were no problems until the fundamentalist leaders, namely those led by Anthony Jordan, began their war against the moderates (the CBFO and Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists) in Oklahoma. You apparently didn't carefully read Part 3 in this series. I listed 8 grave problems that occurred in Oklahoma Baptist history. Beginning with the prevailing spirit of hate and going to the formal adoption of the 2KBF&M, Oklahoma Baptists experienced a plethora of problems, most of which involved terrible treatment of moderate Oklahoma Baptists.

Are you proud of the way that moderate Oklahoma Baptists have been treated in recent Oklahoma Baptist history? Are you proud of the way the state convention treated Joe Ingram, Lavonn Brown, Gene Garrison, Gary Cook, Jerry Don Abernathy, and Anne Graham Lotz. I'm certainly not proud of the treatment these people received. Speaking for myself, I was forced to resign my position as DOM in Grady Baptist Association. A kangaroo court of pastors declared they were going to fire me. I’m a nobody in the scheme of things. But these other people were prominent faithful Oklahoma Baptists until the fundamentalists told them, “Our way or the highway.”

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
You and others like to dismiss that argument but even the Peace Committee back in the 1980s agreed that there were theological problems. You can disagree with me and other conservative pastors but I vehemently disagree with you about being duped. My question is how long will moderates whine and complain about the past?

The Peace Committee was an absolute farce. It was a bunch of fundamentalists who ganged up on the moderates and attempted to forced their particular theological views on the moderates. It was supposed to be a committee to bring peace and reconciliation to the fundamentalists and moderates in the Baptist body.

The so-called theological problems were nothing more than a measure of diversity of theological views. The moderates would have gladly agreed that the fundamentalists could maintain their views if they (the moderates) were allowed to hold their views. But the fundies wouldn't budge. They would not allow a smidgen of theological diversity to exist among Southern Baptists. It has been my experience that fundamentalists will not reconcile with anyone. They can’t even reconcile themselves with themselves. Wade Burleson’s group and the IMB Board of Trustees is “Exhibit A.” Fundamentalists of all stripes, Southern Baptists included, believe they have the corner on God and all that represents truth.

So you desire to know how long moderates will "whine and complain about the past?" Actually, that's the wrong question. The question is, "How long will the fundamentalists continue to deceive themselves into believing they possess the corner on all truth?"

Your blog name is "OkieBaptist4Truth." I suppose you could probably answer that question... :-)

Jim Paslay said...

You like to use the term "fundanmentalist" so I would be interested in knowing your definition of it.

You are reluctant to say anything definitive about Mr. Smith's homosexual lifestyle but you have no problem with Bruce Prescott preaching him into heaven because he did some good deeds. You should be just as critical of your friend as you are of me for "preaching" him into heaven since he also doesn't know Mr. Smith's heart.

It is very clear that you are bitter about the way you were treated in Grady Association. I am not sure how I would have handled that as a pastor but for the life of me I can't comprehend your opposition to the 2000 BF&M. What you and Bruce constantly harp about is from the family admendment and it is drawn right out of Scripture.

As W.A. Criswell said years ago, "Moderates want to say that the Bible is inspired in spots and they want to pick the spots."

By the way, you need to do a little history because inerrancy has been around longer than 1979. It was only when neo-orthodox liberals within our convention began to publish books that explained their views. Would you say that the Elliot controversy in 1961 was a farse and would you agree with him that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are fable? I can give you lots more but I would be interested in your take on some historical events prior to 1979.

As far as Lavonn Brown and Gene Garrison are concerned, I always thought that they were routinely hijacked after they got to the various Southern Baptist Conventions. After a few days in captivity then they were released to spew their negative and nonproductive comments about our denomination. They probably were left out of positions and appointments witin our convention. But I fault them for the way they handled their disagreements with Oklahoma Baptists.

By the way, you didn't respond to my comments concerning the 1963 BF&M which was brought about because of clear theological issues that were being raised, the Elliot controversy being one of them. You have no problem with the 1963 version but you kick and scream all the way on the 2000. I personally believe that the family amendment was needed because of society trying to change the definition of marriage. We need to be clear on such issues as family and when life begins.

I am reminded of the 1982 SBC when Dr. Hobbs was asked to describe what the phrase "All Scripture is inspired by God" meant in the original language. He responded that it meant "every part of the whole" and a God of truth doesn't give us error. That is enough for me. Truth without any mixture of error!

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
You like to use the term "fundanmentalist" so I would be interested in knowing your definition of it.

A fundamentalist is a Christian who believes he/she possesses the only true interpretation of the Bible. A fundamentalists believes that those who don't agree with their interpretation of the Bible are people who don't believe the Bible. A fundamentalist (Southern Baptist) is one believes that those who disagree his view of the Bible is a person who denies the "historic Baptist beliefs" and, most of all, "denies the veracity and authority of Scripture." A fundamentalist believes he possesses the absolute truth on all doctrinal matters. A fundamentalist does not tolerate diversity of opinions and interpretations of the Bible.

A fundamentalist is one who is often bitter and mean-spirited toward those who disagree with his view of the Bible. In Southern Baptist life, the fundamentalists are guilty of demeaning, excluding, and firing their fellow Baptists who do not kowtow to the denominational leadership in virtually every instance. I don't need to delineate all the examples where this has occurred, but I will cite the multitude of seminary professors, denominational workers, and missionaries who received this unchristian treatment at the hands of the fundamentalists.

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
You are reluctant to say anything definitive about Mr. Smith's homosexual lifestyle but you have no problem with Bruce Prescott preaching him into heaven because he did some good deeds. You should be just as critical of your friend as you are of me for "preaching" him into heaven since he also doesn't know Mr. Smith's heart.

I dealt with that in my earlier reply. I'm sorry, Jim, but Bruce didn't "preach" Mr. Smith into heaven. I am not going to be critical of Bruce for complimenting Smith's advocacy of the impoverished, the disabled, the working poor, the dispossessed, and the outcast. As I stated above, from what I read about him, he did a whole lot more than a lot of professed Christians regularly do. We have far too many fundamentalists who smugly condemn homosexuals for doing Christ like deeds. They act as though only fundamentalists are going to make it past the pearly gates.

I refuse to become judgmental of a person who is a homosexual. I won't go there. Contrary to popular fundamentalist beliefs, homosexuals will be in heaven along with the fundamentalists and anyone else who is a child of Christ. A person's relationship with god is does not depend on ones sexual orientation.

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
It is very clear that you are bitter about the way you were treated in Grady Association. I am not sure how I would have handled that as a pastor but for the life of me I can't comprehend your opposition to the 2000 BF&M. What you and Bruce constantly harp about is from the family admendment and it is drawn right out of Scripture.

The family amendment may well be drawn "right out of scripture" in your opinion. But that's your interpretation. In this case, I don't interpret the scripture the same as you do. I don't accept the 2KBF&M as being a valid confession of faith for Southern Baptists. But then I'm no longer a Southern Baptist. Remember, Jim, they kicked me out and disowned me because I didn't agree with them. They wouldn't allow for a diversity of interpretation of the Holy Writ. But such is the nature of fundamentalism...

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
By the way, you didn't respond to my comments concerning the 1963 BF&M which was brought about because of clear theological issues that were being raised, the Elliot controversy being one of them. You have no problem with the 1963 version but you kick and scream all the way on the 2000. I personally believe that the family amendment was needed because of society trying to change the definition of marriage. We need to be clear on such issues as family and when life begins.

Goodness, Jim, the Elliott controversy had nothing to do with the family and marriage. It had to do with the interpretation of the book of Genesis. True, the 63BF&M did relate to the creation of the Elliott controversy. But the family amendment wasn't even a figment of anyone's imagination in 1963.

It's true that society is attempting to change the definition of marriage, but the family amendment couldn't begin to address the problem. Writing family amendments and sticking them into Baptist confessions will do nothing to change society at large. It doesn't even change Baptists, much less Southern Baptists.

The family amendment, as written, is primarily a piece of doctrine that was designed to solidify the fundamentalist control over all Southern Baptists. Control, not clarity, is the name of the game for fundamentalists. As you can observe, it did exactly the opposite. It created much controversy in Southern Baptist life. And this was controversy that was not needed in this time in the history of Southern Baptists.

David Flick said...

Jim Pasley wrote:
I am reminded of the 1982 SBC when Dr. Hobbs was asked to describe what the phrase "All Scripture is inspired by God" meant in the original language. He responded that it meant "every part of the whole" and a God of truth doesn't give us error. That is enough for me. Truth without any mixture of error!

I am reminded again that many Southern Baptists believe that the phrase, "truth without any mixture of error" simply means their understanding of truth without any mixture of error as they understand the Bible. In other words, "truth" is all that agrees with their interpretation of the scripture.

For your enlightenment, I also believe that the Bible ("every part of the whole") contains truth. But I happen to interpret some scriptures differently than you do. I believe I have just as much right to believe the truths of scripture as you do. There are more ways than just one to divine truth from scripture. That my interpretation doesn't jive with yours does not mean that I do not believe the truths of scripture. And that’s enough for me…

Jim Paslay said...

David,

In response to the Elliott controversy, I wasn't relating the controversy to the family amendment. I was simply stating that both confessions have come out of theological controversy whether you accept it as controversy.

As for your definition of fundamentalism, I'm not sure I have met one and I sure don't fit your definition. I strongly disagree with you on many issues but you certainly have that right.

I will give you credit over your friend, Bruce Prescott. He has his comment moderation on his blogspot and I have challenged him to allow all comments but he continues to censor. You on the other hand have been willing to engage me in debate and discourse. I appreciate you for that. Maybe Bruce will get the hint.

Once gain I am troubled by your hesitancy to not be more definitive on the subject of the homosexual lifestyle. I suspect you take I Cor. 6:9-11 differently than I do. Only saved sinners will be in heaven. Those who have turned from their old lifestyle to live a Christ-like lifestyle. The list includes adulterers as well as homosexuals. Sexual sin and perversion will not be glossed over by the Lord. I am not being judgmental, just biblical!

We obviously disagree over several things within the SBC, but I am truly sorry for your situation in the Grady Association. I guess that is the price people pay for standing up for their convictions.