My own theory revolves around a single bad idea. For generations people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent worldview. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that’s probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview. 
If you go out there armed only with your own observations and sentiments, you will surely find yourself on very weak ground. You’ll lack the arguments, convictions and the coherent view of reality that you’ll need when challenged by a self-confident opposition. This is more or less what happened to Jefferson Bethke. 
The paradox of reform movements is that, if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn’t think entirely for yourself. You should attach yourself to a counter-tradition and school of thought that has been developed over the centuries and that seems true.
Obviously, it's not enough to merely bemoan a disappointing present reality.  We can't just wring our hands over our litany of grievances.  Our disapproval alone is no match for the powerful men who wrought these disastrous changes.  We will continue to, in Brooks's words, "attach [ourselves] to a counter-tradition and school of thought."  For us, that means a deep, abiding, and searching Christian faith first and foremost.  It also means reverence for and fidelity to ideals that have been cast aside such as academic freedom, open inquiry, and a fearless quest for a faith that can withstand even the most rigorous intellectual scrutiny.  We, not they, are the true bearers of a unique Baptist heritage that prizes soul freedom, liberty of the conscience, priesthood of the believer, separation of church and state, and all the old Southern Baptist distinctives that the fundamentalists cast aside.  Frankly, they are the ones who came to power on very weak ground and who failed to attach themselves to a coherent school of thought.  We carry the legacies of Herschel Hobbs, Grady Cothen, and Joe Ingram with us as we protest.  They have cast these visionaries aside or, worse, misappropriated their great names.
Brooks concludes:
Most professors would like their students to be more rebellious and argumentative. But rebellion without a rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm. 
If I could offer advice to a young rebel, it would be to rummage the past for a body of thought that helps you understand and address the shortcomings you see. Give yourself a label. If your college hasn’t provided you with a good knowledge of countercultural viewpoints — ranging from Thoreau to Maritain — then your college has failed you and you should try to remedy that ignorance. 
Effective rebellion isn’t just expressing your personal feelings. It means replacing one set of authorities and institutions with a better set of authorities and institutions. Authorities and institutions don’t repress the passions of the heart, the way some young people now suppose. They give them focus and a means to turn passion into change.
The institution we seek to replace is, ultimately, the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.  For decades, it gave OBU a firm grounding, a significant financial leg up, and countless opportunities for reciprocal service, mission, and ministry.  It didn't merely tolerate leaders like Porter Routh, Herschel Hobbs, and Joe Ingram -- it gave us these heroes.  It didn't just allow academic freedom at OBU -- it expected and demanded it.

Sadly, those days are over.  A new generation of leaders controls the BGCO.  This generation may talk about mutuality, but ultimately it seeks control.  It has moved so dramatically away from the values that created and sustained OBU's vibrant academic community that it is really no longer an honest partner in our mission.  We don't need the BGCO's rapidly dwindling financial commitment just so we can be its theological playground where they tinker with personnel and policies until OBU becomes an unrecognizable shell of its former self.

We are not a groundless, directionless movement.  We don't have to grasp in the dark for something to replace BGCO control.  We simply stand by the cherished values and ideals they abandoned.  While it may surprise those who believe all progress is future-oriented, our grounding is actually in the past.  Our critics naively ask, "Why should OBU change to accomodate your preferences?"  Our answer must be unwavering: OUR preferences have not changed.  Our alternative institutions and authorities are rooted in the past.  THEY are the ones who changed.  And in changing with the ever more fundamentalist direction of the SBC, they have stolen something very dear to us.  We will not let it go without a fight.

In fact, we will win.  Not today or tomorrow.  But eventually.  People who have something stolen from them are formidable.  They don't just give up one day and stop seeking that which was taken from them by force and by guile.  We will not withdraw our protest -- we will not rest -- until our cherished values are restored.  We are not asking for change at all.  But we are insisting that the fact that they changed does not mean they can rob us of what we cherish.  We're just demanding the return of something that was stolen from us -- something near and dear to our hearts.

Brooks advises the young (and the young at heart) on "how to fight the man."  His advice is wise, and we are already heeding it.  Like so many reform movements grounded in faith and with the truth on their side, all we really need to do is remain faithful and vigilant.  As Archbishop Tutu used to say to those who oppressed him unrighteously, "You may have all this power, but you have already lost.  Come join the winning side!"  We extend that same invitation to OBU administrators, trustees, and anyone caught between the BGCO power brokers and our vast community.  Come, join the winning side!