Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose

Part 4 in our series on missions - some brief follow-up thoughts on gender, the SBC, and missions. This post is more of an op-ed than the previous three have been. Taking that into consideration, I think this is an important, albeit somewhat tangential, facet of the story that may help direct us to see some specific effects on OBU.

Historically in Baptist life, the mission field has often been the place where women have gone to fulfill their gifts in ministry when they were not permitted to do so at home due in part to some strange mixture of tradition, misogyny, and imperialistic racism (e.g. man > woman; white woman > “heathen”).

For some reason, it was not (and still is not for fundamentalists) permissible for a woman to lead a church in the West, yet they’d send her around the world by herself to preach (if she’s single) to the “heathen and uncivilized.” I do not note these things to disparage devoted missionaries and their work, but merely to comment on the culture of the time and the social strictures and traditions surrounding the emergence of the global missions movement. The fact that women still in 2012 are not permitted in most SBC-affiliated churches to preach in, much less lead, congregations is also tragic and in my mind the reason there continue to be far more women on the mission field than men where they can realize their spiritual gifts and call to ministry.

            The impact of women’s work, however undervalued it continues to be, has in reality been invaluable.  Many of us have heard of the SBC-affiliated yet self-governing and -funded Woman’s Missionary Union (WMU) - the namesake of a beloved freshman women’s dormitory on OBU’s Oval as well as of the WMU professorship in missions at OBU. It was founded by (Baptist) women for women and is now the largest Christian women’s missions group on the planet. It has also been somewhat successful in defying attempts at external control by the militant leadership of the SBC in recent decades.

            Probably the most well-known Baptist women were missionaries: Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon. Those of us who were raised in SBC-affiliated churches will likely recognize these names and the corresponding annual fundraising drives which occur during Easter and Christmas which bear their names.

            These women have made a huge impact in Southern Baptist life and in global missions. Since Lottie Moon, a 19^th century missionary in China, appealed to stateside Southern Baptists to set up a Christmas offering for foreign missions, this offering has since raised over one billion dollars for foreign missions.

           

The effect of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB and Rankin’s new policy -- that missionaries sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and conduct their work according to it -- had consequences even beyond the tragic firing and early retirement of over 100 missionaries and missionary couples. One IMB missionary friend overseas told me that, in her training, it was suggested as an outreach strategy that the male head of family (i.e. her husband) meet with other national male family heads, who, when converted, would initiate a “trickle-down” effect for the rest of the family. The wife was of course still expected to stay at home, raise the kids, and leave much of the real missions work to her husband. Now some couples may choose such an arrangement on their own. But my friend scoffed at the idea as a strategy then and now. She knew that’s not the way things work in the field or with relationships to reach an entire community; and not being raised in the South she was baffled by corresponding attitudes toward gender roles that she encountered in Richmond. It seems like some militant leaders want to export more than simply the Gospel.

The question still remains, however: why is it that the SBC still cannot bring itself to recognize the full God-given value and rights of over half the people in its churches? The 2000 BF&M has made the fundamentalist agenda toward women abundantly clear. To have been included so prominently in such a short document, you’d think the subject of non-ordination of women and female submission was one of their 5 Pillars-Fundamentals or something… but I’m rambling.

            First of all, forget the Whitlock-era administration ever hiring a female professor for Herschel Hobbs the School of Theology and Ministry. (We already know Drs. Norman and McClellan prohibit the hiring of women to teach theology or Bible. Maybe they'd allow a woman to teach children's ministry or missions. How progressive of them!) Secondly, I doubt their new hires are as likely to encourage their female students to pursue God’s gifts of ministry and leadership in their lives if they’re called outside of children’s ministry or missions. I remember well the intellectual and spiritual encouragement I received from a professor who was wrongly dismissed the summer after my graduation.

            It makes me very sad indeed to consider that future classes of Bison won’t experience the same encouragement I and others received if the goals of Provost Norman and BGCO executive director Anthony Jordan are realized.  Gender discrimination in both theology and policy has been one of the primary galvanizing forces for the Save OBU movement.  Two of the blog's most widely circulated posts are about women at OBU (here and here).

Jordan, by the way, chaired the committee that created the “submissive woman” article (Article XVIII) of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

            As militant fundamentalists’ politics were incompatible with missions, so the BGCO’s goals for OBU are incompatible with the academic freedom and rigor required of a Christian liberal arts education like the one OBU was founded to provide. It is difficult to see how these two institutions can be complimentary, much less beneficial for one another in their current relationship. OBU must be made independent from the BGCO, as this tragic story of SBC missions illustrates. 

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

In the past two posts, we’ve been reviewing the story of the fundamentalist takeover of the IMB, specifically the decision to require all missionaries to sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. In Part 3 we will explore what came of one former IMB leader who dissented early on to the fundamentalists’ moves. Learning from his example, we will also describe and explore some options OBU graduates are taking and may explore further.
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

It appears from this story that Rankin and other fundamentalist SBC powerfuls believe that the faith of these missionaries (and the rest of us too, I suppose) stands or falls with their ability to sign in affirmation of a document like the 2000 BF&M in good conscience. The bottom line: politics took precedent over missions. That’s how fundamentalists like Rankin seem to roll nowadays. Sound familiar? Politics and doctrinal purity also take precedent over Christian liberal arts higher education, (see  OBU provost Stan Norman’s interview litmus test for professor openings at OBU recently). First they came for the seminaries. Then they came for the missionaries. Are we just around the corner at OBU from administrators requiring all faculty members in Herschel Hobbs School of Theology and Ministry to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M to purify it in their quest for rigid doctrinal conformity? Actually, at the rate the current administration is replacing faculty members they may not even need to.

Keith Parks, IMB president until 1992 may have seen the events of 2002 coming. In October 2001, three months before Rankin sent out his letter “requesting” IMB missionaries to sign a document affirming the 2000 BF&M, John Pierce of Baptists Today covered a presentation by Parks to an organization of “mainstream” Georgia Baptists: “Doctrinal conformity, not missions, was the primary agenda of fundamentalists who captured control of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s and '90s…. ‘They weren't thinking missions,’ [Parks said]. ‘They were thinking their political agenda.’”

After serving the IMB for 13 years, and leading the IMB into 40 new countries with nearly 4,000 missionaries, Parks resigned from the IMB presidency in 1991-92 as he faced pressure from increasingly fundamentalist agenda-pushing board of trustees. He moved on, staying true to his passion for missions and to his conscience, becoming a leader in the more mainstream Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. More about CBF’s global missions efforts later.

Parks was not the only IMB leader to experience pressure to conform or get out. An Oklahoman pastor at the time, Wade Burleson, joined the IMB board of trustees several years after the new policy for missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M was implemented. For his criticism of some of the board’s policies and his public dissent, he was forced out. Christianity Today interviewed Burleson as well as the IMB board chairman in 2008.

It’s likely that many missions-minded OBU graduates are put off by the requirement to sign the 2000 BF&M in order to fulfill their calling toward missions. I know I was. (I had also been sickened and worn out by the all too close-to-home militant fundamentalist politics I had seen encroaching on OBU from 2009 onward…and this before I knew all this history that I just shared). I still found ways to serve, even with NAMB, that did not require me to sacrifice conscience in order to minister! Yes, some of my friends are also pursuing short-term and career opportunities in missions through IMB or NAMB, whose missionaries are still involved to my knowledge in tremendous ministries across the globe, including projects related to development and water security, orphanages and hospitals, promoting displaced women’s work, and of course church-planting, to name a few. But many more are pursuing other options.

For those OBU grads who are not Southern Baptist, who cannot sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M, who reject creedalism on principle, or feel they can serve better through other outlets there are many solid options. Other graduates and friends are going on to serve their communities and the globe through a variety of other outlets and organizations, including non-profits, church plants, organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, and many others. One such outlet for ministry and missions is the more moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Christians and churches with which Parks became a leader after leaving the IMB presidency. I’m impressed by what I’ve learned of CBF and its clear vision for service, and I encourage those interested to read more. You can read more about their eight ministry areas here – I don’t recall learning about this organization in my Intro to Cross-Cultural Ministry course at OBU. 

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Part 2 – In this post, we continue the story of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB, specifically the decision to require all missionaries to sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We will see the consequences, and we will see just how honest Rankin was about the rationale and consequences of this move.
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Now of course it’s not a bad idea to have general standards of doctrine for those who are employed by the IMB and sent across the world for the purpose of sharing their beliefs. However, these individuals already go through a litany of other procedures during the process to become missionaries with the IMB: documenting their own life journeys, writing confessions of faith, multiple interviews, training, etc. Not only that, but the requirement to sign any document like the one affirming the 2000 BF&M did not exist until 2002. Former IMB president Keith Parks (1981-1992) explained how Rankin’s policy is different from previous precedent. Parks told the Baptist Standard that, “Previously, SBC missionaries were asked in the interview process if they were in ‘substantial agreement’ with the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Now missionaries are being asked to sign in affirmation of the document. Furthermore, they are also being asked, Rankin told the Baptist Standard, to conduct their ministry work “‘in accordance with’ the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Tom Daniel, a former IMB missionary who refused to sign the 2000 BF&M wrote this:

In the Spring of 2002, the International Mission Board asked personnel to respond to 2 related issues: belief consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message; and signing an affidavit binding one's future ministry to its contents. The issues differ, as one is related to content of BFM and the other is related to freedom to interpret the leadership of the Holy Spirit (whether according to the whole counsel of God or the SBC-approved statement of faith).

The more I learn about this, I’m not only upset but baffled by this change in policy. These devoted missionaries already go through a litany of application and confirmation procedures, take leaps of faith to devote their lives to ministry, and many of them put their lives at risk. Why in addition ask our missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M when their selection process is already so careful, intimate, and involved? Many missionaries, especially now in the day of the church-planting movement, are themselves pastors of international churches – so how can they be required to affirm this confession when no pastors stateside are? Rankin could argue all he wanted that this new policy was not a doctrinal litmus test for the IMB’s missionaries in an effort to further the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. However, the effect of the policy is still to actualize the controversial 2000 BF&M with all its political baggage in the ministries of each of these missionaries and at the same time to purify the IMB from missionaries who do not conform to the fundamentalist-crafted creed-like document.

In February of 2002, Rankin had told the press that it was only “pure speculation” that missionaries who refused to sign it would be terminated. But Rankin turned their speculation into reality (which he and the IMB board of trustees probably intended from the outset). The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) recognized the new policy for what it was, even creating a transition fund to help support missionaries who might lose their jobs because they could not sign it.

A year and four months later, the IMB then issued a May 5, 2003 deadline for missionaries to affirm the BF&M, according to a 2003 Christianity Today article from that month.

Tragically, missionaries were indeed terminated for their refusal to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. Christianity Today reported that by May 2003 thirteen missionaries had been fired and thirty missionaries had resigned or retired early. These numbers would rise.

Rankin’s response was brutal: “These missionaries are supported by Southern Baptist churches and should at least be willing to conduct their work in basic agreement with what Southern Baptists confess they believe.” Really? Is the 2000 BF&M really what all churches who freely affiliate with the SBC and who send funds to support missionaries “confess they believe”? Such a proposition is preposterous. The BF&M in any version has never a rallying point or a unifying creed for SBC churches. And far from being a document solely highlighting Baptist distinctive and beliefs, the 2000 BF&M was a controversial document to begin with which, as noted previously, the Baptist General Convention of Texas had actually rejected altogether.

Many of these terminated or resigned missionaries raised poignant and legitimate questions to Rankin and his of the board of trustees, such as:

§  How can the elite group of people at a convention of who crafted the 2000 BF&M claim to represent all Southern Baptists? Furthermore, how can that one document be the measure of our devotion to missions and common Baptist ideals?

§  Are not our consciences free before God and not subject to human beings?

§  How can they ask us to sign a document written by humans and revised already three times in the lifetime of some of these missionaries?

§  What gives SBC powerfuls the notion that they can use us as pawns in their political games?

Rankin wrote one missionary couple, the Dixons, that they were being terminated. He wrote that it was because of their “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support.” The Dixons responded in an open letter:  “Does the Holy Spirit Himself act always ‘in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message?’…We need only witness events in China to discover that He does not: women serving as pastors, evangelists, church planters!”  You can read the rest of their open response to Rankin here: You also can find a list of the missionaries who were terminated or resigned early and read more of their stories, including open letters to Rankin and IMB trustees here [1].

Those missionaries who have signed in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M of course should not be judged. They acted as their consciences and faith permitted.

 I also respect the right of fundamentalists to hold their beliefs – but not their militancy. I think I understand their beliefs and where they’re coming from. But fundamentalism, similar to the 2000 BF&M itself, was constructed in terms of very American issues, a century old knee-jerk reaction to liberal theology and the perceived threat of modernism. As a missionary couple who refused to sign it noted, the BF&M is “culturally biased” and “culturally constructed” document! Many missionaries wanted to know how they can be expected to sign, much less conduct their future ministries according to such a document.

 But the militancy of leaders like those in the IMB lust after conformity and drive them to push for doctrinal rigidity especially in what should be non-essentials. This ideological warfare against traditional Baptist freedoms and against moderates (and really against even non-fundamentalist conservatives too) must stop.

What do these tragic bits of recent history have to do with us? I think the connections are drawn easily enough by our readership – those same militant leaders are gaining increasing control over OBU. As we’ve seen in the last couple years at OBU and through the documentation of this blog, this ideological warfare against non-fundamentalists is not merely a distant threat. It’s knocking down the doors on Bison Hill, which is why we’re trying to learn from history and be an advocate for OBU excellence before it’s too late for academic freedom and liberal arts high education.

For additional reading about this event, scroll to the bottom of this page for a list of articles.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

In this series, I will take us through a story documenting the conservative resurgence/fundamentalist takeover of SBC missions. As a story these posts are not intended to stand alone, so I hope you will stick with me this week and follow along.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

In 2002, then-president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB) Jerry Rankin sent a letter to all IMB missionaries worldwide (some 5,100 individuals at that time) “requesting” they sign a document. What was this document and to what did it ask missionaries to commit? Why were missionaries being asked to sign it? Was it really a request? What would the consequences be of signing it or not signing it? And what do these decade-old events have to do with OBU now in 2012?

  In the next several posts we’re going to look at the history of this event and its consequences. During my research, I’ve discovered these events to be yet another tragic chapter in the development of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. I hope you’ll bear with me through these next posts through which we will see what the actions taken in January 2002 and forward by Rankin and the IMB have to do with our effort to Save OBU.

Having been involved in multiple opportunities to volunteer with and work alongside of dozens of Southern Baptist-affiliated missionaries, both overseas and here in the US, I can attest that these are in general courageous and devoted people. Many risk their lives on a daily basis to serve others around the world in places that are hostile or dangerous. All choose to forsake a “normal” American life near to family and friends and a familiar culture. In my experience, my friends who are missionaries, even those who may have doctrinally fundamentalist leanings, seem freer often than Southern Baptists at home from the embattlements of SBC politics – it’s my personal thought that they are more focused on the real center of Christianity, and not as much on peripherals or non-essentials. However, unfortunately they have not been unaffected by these political games nor by the fundamentalist take-over of the SBC, as we will see.

The SBC does not - well, cannot - require autonomous individual churches, associations, or state conventions to adopt the BFM as their statement of faith. Nor do all congregations agree with the statement in its entirety themselves.

Nevertheless, administrators of Southern Baptist missions organizations, specifically the IMB, now require their personnel to sign a document which affirms the 2000 BF&M [1]. But what of traditional Baptist beliefs such as freedom of conscience before God and the priesthood of all believers?

In January of 2002, then IMB president Jerry Rankin wrote a letter “requesting” that all IMB missionaries sign a document affirming the 2000 BF&M. Such a move was unprecedented in IMB policy, as we will explore in the next post. Missionaries were allowed to note points of disagreement with the 2000 BF&M, but were still expected to sign the document. If a missionary noted disagreements, according to Rankin they would be “counseled” by regional IMB leaders. Mark Wingfield (Baptist Standard) summarized the situation concisely in March of 2002:

Rankin recently wrote to IMB missionaries around the world, asking them to sign a statement indicating their agreement with the controversial 2000 Baptist Faith & Message crafted by SBC leadership but rejected by the [Baptist General Convention of Texas] as an un-Baptist creed. Missionaries who do not agree with every part of the SBC's faith statement will be allowed to note areas of disagreement and then will be ‘counseled’ by regional leadership, Rankin has said. While Rankin has not publicly said what will happen to missionaries who do not sign, numerous reports from missionaries on the field indicate they perceive the mandate as threatening their employment (emphasis added).

A month after this new policy’s implementation, Rankin told the press that it was “pure speculation” that those missionaries who do not sign will be fired. The Baptist Standard paraphrased IMB trustee, Rev. Tim McCoy, who said, ‘“employee policies also forbid missionaries from repeatedly advocating views that are contrary to those outlined in the Baptist Faith & Message’” (emphasis added). So, ostensibly, if an IMB missionary believes that women can be ordained ministers and admits as much on multiple occasions, s/he will face consequences. Or, if an IMB missionary simply cannot sign the document to begin with, s/he will also face consequences. However, Rankin and the trustees had not yet publically declared what these consequences would be, even after the policy was implemented. Rankin admitted as of February 2002 that, “‘We haven't talked about the consequences,’ [Rankin] said. ‘We may have to deal with that in the future.’”

Surely they must have something in mind? It is difficult to believe that Rankin and his board never collectively thought through what they will do to missionaries who cannot sign the document before implementing this policy in January.

Rankin further commented that he "hopes no ‘minor detail of disagreement’ would prevent someone called by God from fulfilling his or her missionary assignment…‘To me [Rankin], it is untenable that a person would be disobedient to their call.’”

Rankin’s comments highlight an interesting picture. For Rankin it is “untenable” that missionaries would be “disobedient to their call” to missions, but it is not untenable that they would be disobedient to their God-given conscience and spirit freedom in signing the document. Such is the nature of militant fundamentalism. It’s obvious that Rankin’s comments blatantly demonstrate his hope that some missionaries’ commitment to their divine call to ministry will override their individual consciences and concerns with the 2000 BF&M, in strapping them in their work with a document many will not be able to agree with either in principal or in particular. They were trapped because if they refused to sign, they no longer have the organizational apparatus or funding to support their ministry overseas, effectively grounding them stateside and ending their overseas ministry.

But extreme consequences were just “pure speculation,” right? These missionaries wouldn’t really be terminated from the IMB for conscientiously refusing to sign this document? To do so would be an un-Baptist violation of freedom of conscience, right?

Many missionaries did not feel comforted by Rankin’s words. To Rankin’s and the IMB board of trustees’ chagrin, the Baptist General Convention of Texas was already forming a safety net for missionaries they anticipated would be terminated for not signing or who would resign early rather than violate conscience:

 “More than 60 IMB missionary couples already have indicated to a BGCT missions study committee that they will not sign the faith statement and fear for their jobs. Excerpts from some of their comments were read to [BGCT] Executive Board members [on] Feb. 26 [2002],” Wingfield further reported in February.

Tomorrow, we continue the sad story of how politics and fundamentalism won out over mission priorities and engagement.
_____________

[1] The IMB’s domestic counterpart, the North American Mission Board, also now requires all missionaries who receive 100% of their support through NAMB to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. However, this amounted to only 50 or so personnel, since most NAMB missionaries are also funded through state conventions and local associations who freely affiliate with the SBC. The documentation and journalism mainly covered the events surrounding the IMB, so that’s where we will focus for these posts.

SACS Puts Brewton-Parker on Academic Probation

Happy Monday, everyone.  I hope everyone saw last week's series on fundamentalism and the SBC by 2006 OBU alumnus Clayton Mauritzen.  I appreciate his very fine contribution here, and was especially gratified to learn that people at other Baptist institutions picked up the series and circulated it among their concerned constituents.

We've said it all along: Fundamentalism eventually destroys educational institutions.  It diverts them from their missions, wrecks their reputations, and never fails to disrupt the careers of very capable, committed professors.

In Georgia, the fundamentalist race to the bottom continues apace.  We reported this spring that Brewton-Parker College, a Georgia Baptist Convention-controlled school in Mount Vernon, GA, was denied reaccreditation last summer by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  By denying BPC's decennial application for reaccreditation, SACS placed the school on warning last June and gave it one year to improve in several critical areas, including institutional effectiveness, financial stability, and having professors insufficiently qualified in the subjects in which they are teaching.

For now, BPC is saying it's disappointed:

MOUNT VERNON — Brewton-Parker College President Mike Simoneaux says he is “extremely disappointed” that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has placed the institution on academic probation and has failed to recognize the progress the college has made in the past year.

(The above quotation is the opening graf of the GBC's newspaper PR publication, the Christian Index. It's password protected, but I can't wait to see the full version to see how the fundamentalists try to spin this.)  Notice how President Simoneaux is trying to say that SACS has failed, not his fundamentalist Bible college.  It's natural to feel disappointed when you realize that your capitulation to fundamentalist demands is the nail in your institution's coffin and it happened on your watch.  A lot of other schools managed to retain their accreditation, in spite of horrible abuses suffered at the hands of fundamentalist trustees and administrators (Exhibit A: the SBC seminaries).  So it's not as if the national accrediting bodies have an agenda against religious institutions.  So it's easy to understand why President Simoneaux is saying he is "Embarrassed" is actually the proper reaction, but fundamentalists have no shame about what they are doing.

Once the accreditation battle is lost, a lot of post-Takeover schools eventually adopt a different line, and it's one I predict Simoneaux and his GBC college president colleagues Emir Caner and Don Dowless will be using soon enough.  They will say that they were presented with a choice between secular elites' vision and God's vision for how their institution should operate.  Since losing your accreditation is horribly embarrassing, they will turn it around and try to wear it as a badge of honor.  Then they'll pursue "accreditation" through one of several joke associations of fundamentalist schools such as the Association for Biblical Higher Education.  It's sad, but BPC seems to be far enough down this road that I doubt they can turn things around.  And it seems quite obvious that the true power brokers (GBC elites) don't even care.

The Next Two Weeks

Happy Saturday, everyone!

I'm in the middle of teaching a monthlong summer school course on Comparative Political Systems at Georgetown.  Veronica will be squeezing in another condensed, weeklong seminary course at TCU later this month as well.  Even if the pace of our blog posting has slowed somewhat, a lot is going on behind the scenes.  We're continuing to build collaborations with other teetering Baptist institutions and learning from their experiences.  (Take a moment to read Save Our Shorter's description of its trustees' negligence.  Then say a prayer of thanksgiving that OBU still has good trustees!)

Recent Posts
This week, we noted that OBU conferred an honorary doctorate upon Rev. Fred Luter, the New Orleans pastor who will be elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention next week.  I still don't have a straight answer on whether a committee decides who should get honorary degrees or whether it's based on the president's unitary executive authority.  But we were fairly alarmed to learn that OBU has given doctorates to two post-Takeover SBC presidents in the past year alone.  Until now, we hadn't typically used the honorary degree as a way to cozy up to fundamentalist SBC elites, especially one without any OBU or Oklahoma connections besides being Stan Norman's friend.  If you look at the list of post-Takeover SBC presidents, OBU has only honored Luter and the Rev. Dr. Tom Elliff.  Though Elliff did enough damage on his own, it would be horrendous for OBU to go back and start giving honorary doctorates to Takeover-era SBC presidents, since many of them shamefully abided the destruction/fundamentalization of once-proud Baptist institutions.

On Thursday, I took at pass at blaming the SBC's membership decline on fundamentalism.  It took some restraint.

The Next Two Weeks
Next week, the SBC Pastor's Conference and Annual Meeting take place in New Orleans.  We'll be providing updates through our Facebook and Twitter feeds, but here on the blog we'll be taking a holistic look at the history of fundamentalism in the SBC.  Clayton Mauritzen ('06) who has written here before, will be leading us through a six-part series that seeks to understand and explain the causes and consequences of the convention's institutionalization of fundamentalism.

The following week, past contributor Caitlin Dacus ('11) will lead us through a four-part examination of the Takeover's effect on Baptist missionaries.  This is a tragic story that not many people know, and Caitlin's interests and experiences make her the ideal person to tell it.  I definitely look forward to welcoming Clayton and Caitlin back to the blog!

We also have some exciting guest posts planned for later in the summer.  Of course, we'll also be releasing the results of our BGCO pastor/church staff survey.  And we have some interesting facts to present that will highlight Oklahoma Baptists' need to beef up their BCM funding, even if it comes at the expense of subsidizing OBU.

Save OBU Connections Continue to Build
Now that our movement is more than six months old, we're starting to see the positive, snowballing effects of connecting geographically- and temporally-dispersed faculty (current and former), alumni, retirees, students, and concerned Baptists.  I'm hearing reports of Save OBU helping people connections, sharing stories, and building friendships at conferences, churches, and educational institutions.  This is so wonderful to hear!  Please keep the stories coming!  (jlupfer [at] gmail [dot] com).

We didn't act in time to get a booth at the CBF General Assembly (June 20-23 in Ft. Worth), but please don't let that stop you from talking up OBU at an event where many concerned constituents will be present!  We'll try to have a formal presence at next year's CBF assembly.  And since next year's SBC is in Baltimore, I may just go myself.  Until I get kicked out along with all the other barnacles and parasites :-)

Finally, if any of you are going to be in the Washington, D.C. area this summer, let me know!  I'd love to compare notes and get to know you better.

-Jacob

The SBC's Decline

By now, many of you will have seen the data reported in advance of next week's SBC Annual Meeting: the downward trend in membership continues.  For the first time since 2000, the nation's largest Protestant denomination dipped below 16 million members.  When you look at the decline in relative terms (as a percentage of the U.S. population), the trendlines look even worse, as Baptist historian and blogger Aaron Weaver pointed out in a blog post this time last year.  Weaver shows that from the 1950s to 1980, the SBC saw a 30% increase in its share of the U.S. population.  During and since the Takeover years, SBC membership as a share of total U.S. population has declined 15%:

Image credit: Aaron Weaver at thebigdaddyweave.com.

You are probably thinking that I'm going to blame the continuing decline on the resurgence of authoritarianism and doctrinal absolutism in the SBC.  But there's definitely much more going on.  When you look at the broader context of American denominationalism in particular and voluntary associations in general, there is a clear sea change that has taken place.  A lot of this story is summarized in Robert D. Putnam's 2000 book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.  (Incidentally, I first learned about this book when OBU President Mark Brister referenced it in a guest presentation he gave to my senior ministry seminar in 2002.)

The SBC is not unique in its membership challenges.  Other religious groups have suffered the same fate -- many far worse.  Demographic shifts go a long way toward accounting for these trends. Another key difference is that people are increasingly comfortable with having "none" as their religious affiliation.  Years ago, even if someone had not been to church in years, Americans felt a strong pressure to give some answer when pollsters asked about their religious affiliation.  Today it's much more socially acceptable to be unaffiliated, even in the Bible-Belt South.

The lack of brand/institutional/denominational loyalty among the younger age cohorts is also striking.  Given increased competition from nondenominational churches in places where likely SBC constituents live (e.g., white suburbs), it's no surprise that the SBC has lost ground.

I would love to blame this all on fundamentalism, but I think it's more important to be intellectually honest.  To that end, I think it's vital to point out that there is a growing body of survey data and scholarly research that points to a big reason for why young people are abandoning conservative Protestantism in droves.  Hout and Fischer (2002) suggest that politics is a likely culprit.  While the proportion of Americans who expressed no religious preferences was unchanged from 1974-1991, it doubled in the decade after 1991 (from 7% to 14%, and continues to skyrocket).  Though Americans maintained roughly stable levels of conventional religious beliefs, the increasing politicization (i.e., Republicanization) of evangelicalism has undoubtedly turned many young people away.  More recent studies point to the increasing identification of evangelicalism with anti-gay politics as absolutely toxic for retaining younger cohorts in the church.  A great deal of recent research bears this out, including Putnam's most recent book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (coauthored with fellow political scientist David Campbell).

A few evangelical leaders who are slightly less reflexively pro-Republican have spoken out about the need to liberate the church from partisan politics (Jonathan Merritt and Rachel Held Evans come to mind, and both have taken intense criticism from older evangelical leaders who made their careers, reputations, and fortunes off the culture wars.)

When I put on my Save OBU hat, it's tempting to use the data above to slam the Takeover as driving the SBC's decline.  We can blame the Takeover for a lot of problems, but probably not for this one.  Since I wear my social scientist hat the other 23 hours every day, I have to refrain from the temptation to let correlation imply causality.

Post-Takeover SBC Presidents: Mayors of Crazy Town?

Last weekend, OBU sent a delegation to New Orleans to award SBC President-in-Waiting Fred Luter an honorary Doctor of Divinity.  For 30 years after the Takeover, it was not OBU's practice to give out honorary degrees to SBC climbers and elites.  Yet in the past month, we have given honorary doctorates to two SBC presidents.  If anything, we should be keeping our distance from modern SBC leadership, which has collectively had a disastrous effect on academic freedom and Baptist distinctives over the past 30 years.  Yet the David Whitlock Administration seems to be wasting no opportunity to cozy up to SBC elites.

So let's take a look at this prestigious fraternity.  Chances are you'll recognize some, if not most, of the names.

Note that some of the events and statements reported below did not take place during that man's tenure as SBC president.  Rather, the point is being fundamentalist and obsessive about political control and domination are prerequisites for the job.  Being a little crazy usually helps, too.  The recent presidents haven't been nearly as bad as the earlier ones.  But then again, the first generation presidents did most of the dirty work.  Nowadays, all the boards and institutions have already been pretty much destroyed.  You can read about most of these guys in this handy online guide: 30 People, 7 Boards, 2 Committees, and 1 News Service Who Screwed Up the Southern Baptist Convention.


Rev. Adrian Rogers, TN (1979-1980)
After several years of planning by Takeover architects, Rogers's election signaled the beginning of the end for moderates in the SBC.

Rev. Bailey Smith, OK (1980-1982)
Tom Elliff's brother-in-law was special indeed.  He claimed to know the limits of divine hearing, insisting "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."  Just for kicks, he also quipped, "I don't know why God chose the Jew, they have such funny noses."  I really hope Rev. Smith's sister dated a few Jewish guys before she married Tom Elliff.

Rev. Jimmy Draper, TX (1982-1984)
As SBC president, he continued the practice of appointing only fundamentalists to denominational boards and agencies.  Later, as president of the Sunday School Board, he purged that organization of moderates through more than 100 early retirements and forced resignations.

Rev. Dr. Charles Stanley, GA (1984-1986)
He wasn't quite as much of a one-man wrecking ball as some of the other early Takeover presidents.  But he dutifully appointed only fundamentalists to SBC boards and agencies.  Stanley cashed in on his SBC fame and made a boatload of money writing devotional books.

Rev. Adrian Rogers, TN (1986-1988)
Even after his second stint as SBC president, Rogers continued to be active in the Takeover.  Regarding his desire to police what SBC seminary professors taught, Rogers said "If we say pickles have souls, they better teach that pickles have souls!"  Rogers also advocated that the WMU be "hardwired" into the convention's power structure -- in other words, that the convention strip the power of electing WMU board members from the state WMU organizations.  Also, Rogers spearheaded a 1992 meeting where fundamentalists, having taken over the SBC, turned their sights on state conventions.  Tellingly, this was shortly before Anthony Jordan and other fundamentalists led the BGCO to censure former Executive Director-Treasurer Joe Ingram for "consorting with moderates."

Rev. Dr. Jerry Vines, FL (1988-1990)
As SBC president, he continued the fundamentalist practice of appointing only like-minded people to SBC boards and agencies.  You probably know Vines best for his description of the Prophet Mohammed as a "demon possessed pedophile."  When pushed Vines cited a book by (now) Truett-McConnell College President Emir Caner (and his brother Ergun, who was demoted from Liberty University's administration for lying repeatedly about his life story and testimony).

Rev. Dr. Morris Chapman, TX (1990-1992)
Nominated for the SBC presidency by OBU alum Rev. Dr. John Bisagno, an influential pastor who had previously said he was neutral in the controversy.  Chapman exemplified the growing hatred of moderates, informing the Baptist World Alliance that the SBC would be pulling out of the international Baptist body because it had admitted the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a member.

Rev. Ed Young, TX (1992-1994)
More of the same.  Particularly bad on church-state issues, reflecting the new normal for the SBC.  It was on Young's watch that the SBC defunded the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

Rev. Dr. Jim Henry, FL (1994-1996)
The closest thing to a moderate the SBC presidency has seen since the Takeover began in 1979.  As far as I know, he has not done or said anything too wacky.

Rev. Dr. Tom Elliff, OK (1996-1998)
Elliff continued the purge and marginalization of moderates.  By now, you probably know about his comparison of moderates Baptists to barnacles on a ship.  He recently spoke at OBU's commencement. To preserve decorum, the parasites seated on the platform behind him (OBU faculty) applauded politely.  He has received two honors from OBU in the past year: the First Annual Herschel H. Hobbs Award for Distinguished Denominational Service and an honorary doctorate.  Elliff now leads the SBC's International Mission Board, where liberty of the conscience once existed.

Rev. Dr. Paige Patterson, TX (1998-2000)
As president of Criswell College in the late 1970s, Patterson and Paul Pressler, a Houston judge and Baptist layman, formulated the original Takeover plan.  Noting the massive appointive power of the SBC presidency, Patterson and Pressler realized that if a few fundamentalist presidents exclusively appointed fundamentalists to the denomination's boards and agencies, the whole organization would be thoroughly fundamentalist in just a decade or so.  They were right.

Rev. Dr. James Merritt, GA (2000-2002)
Although Merritt dutifully exercised his expected post-Takeover duties, some Baptist elites and commentators didn't find him to be extreme enough.  Merritt's son, Jonathan, is a popular cultural commentator who is somewhat less reflexively pro-Religious Right than most SBC elites.  The prospect of the younger Merritt acceding to his father's pulpit someday horrifies some fundamentalists.

Rev. Dr. Jack Graham, TX (2002-2004)
About what you would expect.  Graham oversaw the SBC's withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance.  Perhaps most bizarrely, he supported a resolution at the 2004 SBC that called on Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools.

Rev. Dr. Bobby Welch, FL (2004-2006)
Welch was one of the relatively normal ones.  But given how far that goalpost has moved, that's not really saying much.  Whereas other past presidents cashed in on their notoriety by writing books, Welch has snagged several plum positions in the SBC and state convention hierarchies.

Rev. Dr. Frank Page, SC (2006-2008)
Like his successors, Page obeyed the post-Takeover playbook and did the requisite Religious Right politicking.  And like Welch, he managed to parlay his success into some nice, influential pre-retirement positions.  Currently, Dr. Page is president of the SBC's Executive Committee, the powerful body that represents the SBC between its annual meetings.

Rev. Johnny Hunt, GA (2008-2010)
The accuracy of Hunt's resume sparked some controversy around the time of his election.  But if legitimizing degree mills is the worst thing contemporary SBC presidents do, then I guess things could be worse.  And pretty soon, a lot of once-great Baptist colleges may indeed become degree mills.

Rev. Bryant Wright, GA (2010-2012)
Wright has had the misfortune of presiding over several P.R. blunders, including the SBC name change debate and the fallout from SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land's plagiarized racist comments about Trayvon Martin, a young black man shot to death earlier this year by a white neighborhood watch patrolman.  But if recent history is any guide, Wright will find a nice, six-figure pre-retirement retirement at some SBC agency or institution.

Rev. Fred Luter, LA (2012-2014)
So, given the less-than-illustrious history of his 16 most recent predecessors, can you understand why we're a little skeptical about David Whitlock's decision to give Luter an honorary doctorate?  Every indication is that Luter will stand firmly in line with the post-Takeover status quo, which has created a horrible environment for what few legitimate Baptist educational institutions remain.  Why are we ingratiating ourselves to SBC politicians when there are so many leaders who have stood with integrity for academic freedom and true Baptist distinctives that we could honor?

Note to members of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church, New Orleans: We here at Save OBU sincerely hope this award ceremony did not encroach on your Sunday worship.  We realize that Pastor Luter has absolutely no relevant connections to Oklahoma Baptist University other than its administrators' desire to be in the good graces of a powerful figure.  But by now you are used to people cozying up to your pastor for no other reason than his position in SBC politics.  Sorry for the charade.

Whitlock Cozying Up to SBC Elites Again, Gives Luter a Doctorate

It's a well-known fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has changed dramatically over the past 30 years.  One obvious and tragic consequence is that Baptist higher education has suffered badly under the new regime.  A related problem is that the convention and its institutions have become outright hostile to anyone who is not in lockstep agreement with the Takeover faction's rigid, dogmatic ideology.

As a Baptist college trying to nurture fearless inquiry, critical thought, and rigorous study in an anti-intellectual denominational climate that values conformity, loathes academic freedom, loves giving pat answers and is nervous about people asking hard questions, you might think that OBU would steer clear of blatant associations with the post-Takeover SBC.  And while the Takeover was happening, that's pretty much what happened.  Under Bob Agee's watch, OBU steered clear of denominational politics.  Chapel speakers included fundamentalists and moderates.  Agee maintained OBU's independence from the infighting, and his statesmanlike leadership kept OBU above the fray.

Fifteen years later, however, the man who considers Agee a role model has decided to do the exact opposite.  Instead of keeping fundamentalist SBC elites at a distance, OBU President David Whitlock apparently wastes no opportunity to unilaterally prostrate OBU before the current generation of SBC elites.  At least year's SBC meeting in Phoenix, Whitlock and other administrators presented International Mission Board President Tom Elliff, a fundamentalist with a particularly vengeful attitude toward moderates, with an award from OBU.  To add insult to injury, the new honor, presumably to be given annually, is called the Herschel H. Hobbs Award for Distinguished Denominational Service.  Attaching Hobbs's name to fundamentalist causes is about as insulting as giving Confederate generals the Abraham Lincoln Award.

But it apparently wasn't enough to give Elliff the Hobbs Award.  Just last month, OBU awarded Elliff an honorary doctorate.  As Hobbs spoke at OBU's commencement ceremony, the faculty behind him had to applaud politely for the man who, upon leaving the SBC presidency in 1998, boasted that he had marginalized moderates in the convention, or, in his words, "removed barnacles and parasites from the Ship of Zion."

Now, a month later, we're handing out another honorary doctorate.  And by "we," I mean President Whitlock, Provost Stan Norman, Spiritual Life Dean Dale Griffin, and Fine Arts Dean Ken Gabrielse.  Now, I don't know who votes on these things, or if giving out fake degrees is the exclusive prerogative of the president.  But at least with Dr. Elliff, there is an Oklahoma/OBU connection.  Alongside with his spiritual cleansing crusade, Elliff did manage to pastor a large church in Oklahoma and serve on OBU's board of trustees.  I think maybe one or more of his children attended OBU, too.  Plus, his "distinguished denominational service" has probably enriched him so much that he might make a generous donation to OBU some day.

But Fred Luter, as far as I can tell, has no OBU connection whatsoever.  This honorary degree seems to serve no other purpose but to ingratiate the SBC's president-in-waiting to OBU and its new coterie of fundamentalist and fundamentalist-sympathizing administrators.  For all his fine pastoral work, he hasn't done anything to bring pride or distinction to OBU.  The ONLY reason Whitlock (maybe Norman is behind it -- he may have been an old seminary buddy of Luter's for all I know) is cozying up to Luter is that Luter is going to be elected president of the SBC later this month.

Yet last night in New Orleans, the same city where the fundamentalists' Takeover plan was hatched, Whitlock and colleagues were wining and dining (well, dining anyway -- they are Baptists, after all) the Luters in celebration of his doctorate.

Students: Behold, your tuition dollars at work.

I'm sure at least some of these OBU administrators will be in New Orleans for the SBC annual meeting June 19 & 20.  I don't know whether they are planning on staying for 11 days, or if these are two separate junkets.  Rather than keeping the SBC at arms length as you might expect administrators at legitimate institutions of higher learning in the post-Takeover environment to do, OBU seems to be sparing no expense to make sure that OBU is right there in the mix.

I shudder to think about who might be awarded the Second Annual Herschel H. Hobbs Award for Distinguished Denominational Service at the SBC meeting.  Maybe someone who chaired a trustee board that forced out seminary presidents in the late 80s or early 90s?  Perhaps one of the several guys who, over the years, forced board, agency, or institution employees to sign the Baptist Faith and Message or be fired.  But the fact remains that, either in spirit or in fact, whoever gets the award will be someone who booed Herschel Hobbs at the 1980 SBC as he warned against the disastrous effects of the coming Takeover and its tactics.  The more I think about it, the more it disgusts me.

As for honoring SBC presidents, pre- or post-Takeover, I don't know what precedent exists.  But Luter is joining a who's who of fundamentalist preachers who, in the last 30 years, have actively degraded institutions of higher learning, enforced doctrinal conformity, and made insulting and bizarre public statements.  Maybe Luter will be different.  But I wouldn't count on it.  And it can only be bad that OBU is on his mind at all.  Fortunately, he probably doesn't give a hoot about this little OBU award.  He likely sees out for supper last night and having a ceremony this morning as part of the territory -- someone that powerful and well-connected will inevitably have political climbers and kiss-ups all around him.

If not for the one two Elliff awards and the history of tacit and explicit support of fundamentalist-inspired administrative tactics at OBU, I wouldn't be bothered by this little song and dance.  It would still be weird, given Luter's lack of connection to OBU in any way whatsoever, but it would be innocuous enough.

But Whitlock is dramatically deviating from his supposed mentor's modus operandi.  Rather than insulating OBU from the corrosive effects of the Takeover, Whitlock seems to be going out of his way to kowtow to the very men who have used their political power to dismantle historic Baptist distinctives, cheerlead the degradation of Baptist academia, and disparage the faith and work of people like the fine men and women who have taught at OBU.

When the fundamentalists make their move at OBU, can Whitlock be trusted to stand for academic freedom?  Or is he going to lead us in a race to the bottom?  I think you know the answer.  It's already happening.

Why Save OBU is for Conservatives

Time to clear up a few misconceptions.  Apparently, the idea is out there that Save OBU is a movement for theological moderates and liberals.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!  Most of our supporters would describe themselves as moderates as opposed to fundamentalists, but the overwhelming majority are theologically conservative.  Save OBU does not have an ideological agenda and, as I hope you have noticed and appreciated, is stridently apolitical.

Labels and Terminology
Something is always lost when you use convenient labels to describe and generalize about a large group of people.  Nonetheless, labels and generalizations are inevitable.  There was a definitive shift in the leadership, administration, and direction of the SBC in the 1980s.  Those who favored that campaign and its tactics refer to the shift as the Conservative Resurgence.  Those who opposed it speak of a Fundamentalist Takeover.  The new leaders who swept to power referred to their opponents as liberals.  Those who opposed the takeover/resurgence and its tactics say the shift was brought on by fundamentalists.  These labels generate no small amount of confusion, distortion, and hurt feelings.

Many of the "fundamentalists" think of themselves as conservatives.  And virtually all of the "liberals" are actually moderates and conservatives.  Dr. James Shoopman's, in his introduction to the book The Fundamentalist Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, adds needed clarity.  During the Takeover/Resurgence years, ascendant fundamentalists/conservatives "often implied a meaning for the term 'liberal' that far exceeded the truth about seminary professors and denominational executives."  If a "liberal" is someone who does not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, denies the divinity of Jesus, and does not believe in salvation by grace through faith, then there were never more than a handful of liberals in the SBC.

Shoopman goes on to provide a good rationale for how to use terms like conservative, moderate, and liberal.  The issue is how much change there should be in traditional church teachings on topics such as

• The nature of God, the person of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit;
• The nature of the Bible -- its authorship, styles of study, and interpretation;
• Marriage, divorce, sexuality, abortion, prayer in public schools, and separation of church and state; and
• The place of women in the workplace and the church.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates
Shoopman defines conservatives as people who maintain that there should be "little or no change in how the church teaches on these subjects, unless it is to make that teaching even more strict."  Liberals, on the other hand, "maintain there should be a great deal of flexibility in how the church teaches on these subjects, usually in the direction of greater liberty."  Moderates, he says, prefer a middle way:

They take a more liberal approach to some things and a more conservative approach to others.  Some teachings should change and some teachings should stay the same.  Moderates assume that newness or oldness does not make an idea good or bad.  Instead, an idea is good or bad depending on whether it is consistent with the Bible, our conscience, and sound study.  If an idea is truthful and useful, it may lead to change, but not all "modern" ideas are sound, and not all "traditional" ideas are sound, either.

Fundamentalists
Shoopman defines fundamentalists as people who angered by changes in the world or in church teaching: "A fundamentalist is a person of very strict belief and behavior who requires absolute certainty about his or her beliefs and is willing to fight for that certainty."  Moreover, "fundamentalists cannot abide any challenge to their beliefs through either the behavior or the beliefs of others.  They tend to regard any deviation from their norm as dangerous.  There are fundamentalists in all of the major world religions that have been affected by modernity, and they are characterized by anger at modernity, strict legalism, and a desire to fight for more control of their environment.

Based on these descriptions, I believe that President Whitlock and Provost Norman are enacting fundamentalist ethos and agenda OBU.  But few will claim the label "fundamentalist" for themselves because, though accurate, it has a negative connotation.  You can judge for yourself whether those negative connotations are justified.  In Southern Baptist life, the term "liberal" as defined above is virtually meaningless.  No one claims the term because it has an even more pejorative connotation than "fundamentalist."  There were never more than a handful, if any, liberals teaching in SBC seminaries or leading SBC agencies.  And there were certainly never any liberals teaching at OBU.  Now let me be clear:  There are, of course, professors who are to the left of the fundamentalists, and there may even be a few who have voted Democratic.  But speaking strictly theologically, there are no liberals.

Opinions and Facts
Just as it's important to be precise in terminology, it's vital that we distinguish between opinions and facts.

SBC Resurgence/Takeover
Though we are mostly concerned with OBU, the broader context is the Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover.  You can call it what you like, and you can think it was a good thing or a bad thing.  You may think it was a needed corrective to align the denomination with its fundamentalist membership or you may think it was a dirty, disingenuous campaign about power, ideology, and worldly politics. You cannot, however, deny that the convention and its institutions and agencies experienced a definitive, qualitative change in leadership, emphases, and ethos that reflected fundamentalists' values and was hostile to moderates.

The Resurgence/Takeover in the BGCO
A similar dynamic transpired at the state convention level.  Again, you're free to call it what you want and judge it to be a good change or a bad change.  Our sense is that the partnership between BGCO Executive Director-Treasurer Bill Tanner and OBU President Bob Agee was the last time the OBU/BGCO relationship worked even reasonably well for both entities.  Since Anthony Jordan became head of of the BGCO, pressure on OBU (which had long existed, flaring up occasionally) ratcheted up big time.  Also not up for discussion is the fact that the convention's annual subsidy to OBU represents an ever shrinking share of the university's operating budget, falling from 25% to less than 5% since the early 1980s.  During that time, the convention has continued to elect all 32 of OBU's trustees and exercises more power over trustee nominations.  You can decide whether you think that is fair or just.  But you can't deny it.

The BGCO is, in many ways, a black box between the post-Takeover/Resurgence SBC and OBU.  It's hard to prove definitively that convention elites are behind the changes at OBU.  Relevant meetings are not public, relevant personnel will not speak on the record, and neither the convention's "newspaper," the Baptist Messenger, nor OBU's student-produced newspaper, The Bison, have the latitude to ask tough questions or editorialize about the BGCO/OBU relationship except to cheerlead for the status quo.

The Resurgence/Takeover at OBU
During the Agee presidency (1982-1997), a deliberate attempt was made to insulate OBU from the effects of the resurgence/takeover.  As an institution, OBU seemed not to take a side, focusing instead on striving for excellence in its core mission.  Since Agee's departure, OBU is much more blatantly aligned with the "new" SBC.  Fundamentalists assumed President Mark Brister (1998-2007) would be "their man" at OBU.  Neither "side" was fully satisfied with Brister.  Ultimately, Brister's commitment to OBU's mission outweighed his desire to stay in Anthony Jordan's good graces.

The kinds of administrative interference and wholesale disregard for institutional norms and contractually-mandated processes President Whitlock and Provost Norman have undertaken with impunity are altogether new at OBU.  These kinds of moves were unheard of at OBU during the decades when it gained a national reputation for excellence in Christian higher education.  Indeed, they would not have been tolerated.  But since the president of OBU ultimately serves at the pleasure of the BGCO executive director-treasurer (who can control trustee nominations), faculty have virtually no recourse.  The Faculty Council came close to taking a no-confidence vote last fall.  But one wonders who would have lost that fight, now that we've seen Baptist schools get rid of faculty by the dozens.

Some people view the changes at OBU as positive.  They say that OBU is within its right to use administrative authority to bring the ethos of the institution more in line with the convention that pays an ever shrinking share of its operating budget, even if norms are disregarded and ethically troubling procedures are employed.  We happen to disagree.  We believe the changes are negative and pose grave threats to academic freedom, OBU's reputation, its quality and rigor, and its proud tradition of excellence in distinctively Baptist Christian liberal arts education.

Like it or hate it, however, you cannot deny that OBU's direction is qualitatively different and has experienced a marked departure with long-established norms.

Worldview: How Big is the Tent?
So how does all this related to the claim that Save OBU is for conservatives?  Unlike the new OBU, which is slowly on the path to becoming more monolithic, more insular, and more constrained at the far right end of the ideological/theological/political spectrum, Save OBU is a big tent.  A big tent full of conservatives and moderates, with a handful of liberals thrown in.  It's actually been hard to attract liberals.  Quite a few of them have emailed me and said things like, "You're wasting your time," "This battle was lost 30 years ago and there's nothing we can do to change it now," "OBU is a lost cause," etc.

Clarifying a Point about Christian Worldview
I take part of the responsibility for the misperception that Save OBU is for theological moderates and liberals.  For instance, in our worldview series, I'm afraid that questioning the usefulness of the term "the Christian worldview" may have been off-putting.  As I tried to point out in one of my reviews, I was much more bothered by the use of the definite article than by the concept in general, which of course can still be useful.  A friend recently pointed out to me that my reluctance to talk about the Christian worldview might have made some conservatives think I am reluctant to affirm that the Christian faith has any specifiable cognitive content whatsoever.  Conservatives might be uncomfortable with that message, and justifiably so!  I have long believed texts like Job 19:25 (I know that my Redeemer liveth) and the Christ hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 constituted the framework of a Christian worldview.  Just because someone is reluctant to define the requirements of Christian worldview in ever narrower term does not mean they think "anything goes."  The main point is that the Christian worldview is in fact much broader in scope than the one being currently enforced (and apparently taught) at OBU.

Why Conservatives Should Support Save OBU
It's pretty simple.

1. Most of the people who already support Save OBU are conservatives.  Most of them were saved and baptized in Southern Baptist churches; they affirm the divinity of Jesus, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man.  Save OBU is not a movement of liberals -- theological or otherwise.  Sure, there are a few people who left the SBC sometime after the Takeover/Resurgence.  And I bet we even have a few folks who are disaffected with the whole enterprise, angry at God and/or the church, and just hope that OBU can still be a true liberal arts university.  But judging from our Facebook fans' likes and comments, almost everyone who supports Save OBU reads their Bibles, prays regularly, and goes to church on Sundays.  They are mostly white, mostly suburban, and mostly Republican.  The common theme among all of them, however, is their deep affection for OBU and sincerely held concerns about its future.
2. If OBU goes down the tubes, it hurts us all -- faculty, students, staff, and alumni without regard to who is liberal, moderate, or conservative.
3. We are not advocating that OBU become more liberal.  Rather, we are pleading that it not become fundamentalist.  Higher education in Baptist life is in a precarious position today.  At the denominational level, the SBC seminaries are shells of their former selves.  They were once among the most rigorous and well-regarded institutions of theological education in the world.  Rigor and quality took a backseat to ideological conformity.  Academic freedom no longer exists.  The guardians of authentic Baptist theological education were fired long ago.  Now that the seminaries have been transformed, the colleges are being targeted.
4. Some state convention-run colleges have already been taken over.  Administrators at schools like Louisiana College, Truett-McConnell College, Brewton-Parker College, and Shorter University have sold these schools down the river for thirty pieces of silver.  The changes being enacted at these and other Baptist schools are so radical that they will almost certainly lose their accreditation in the next decade.  We all have an interest in preventing that fate at OBU.
5. As for Save OBU's core argument -- that our problems begin and end with the BGCO -- we see dozens of evangelical colleges that are flourishing without denominational ownership and control.  All we see with convention-controlled colleges is politics and strife.

We welcome all who love OBU and who are passionate about Christian higher education to join our movement (we're on Facebook and Twitter), support our aims, and invite your friends, classmates, and colleagues to take part!  If you think of yourself as a conservative and you love OBU, let me be the first to welcome you home.

YEC at OBU and Elsewhere

Today, I'd like to weave together a few disparate items into a coherent thought about a coming war between science and religion at OBU.

First, I am of course alarmed that OBU recently hired a young-earth creationist to teach in the religion department.  More on that later.

Second, I'm concerned that I previously overstated the degree to which certain of OBU's peers are actually legitimate, intellectually honest and respectable institutions.  In my distress about the new enforcement of ideological rigidity and conformity at OBU, I assumed too quickly and without evidence that other evangelical schools were somehow better off in this regard.  For instance, I was impressed that Biola University received a $3 million grant from the Templeton Foundation for its new Center for Christian Thought.  But Biola's "Genesis Colloquium" this week, along with its published materials, seem to indicate an understanding that, while not required, young-earth creationism is a legitimate explanation for the origins of the universe.  Young-earth creationism is, unsurprisingly, still a force in many institutions affiliated with the Council for Conservative Christian Colleges and Universities, which is sponsoring the Biola colloquium.  I used to assume OBU was above all that, but OBU has changed.

Third, I recently had an enlightening conversation with a Christian philosopher friend who took a look at our recent series on the Baptist Messenger's "Christian worldview" essays.  My friend, who is imminently qualified to teach at OBU and could have easily gotten hired there pre-Norman but wouldn't stand a chance today.  He points out that the stage is set for a large-scale kerfuffle over this issue as faculty have to reconcile their personal commitments and integrity with the newfound acceptance (and eventually requirement?) of YEC at OBU.

Given the dramatic shift of OBU's religion department in the past 2-3 years, we will now see much more tension between science and religion at OBU.  I grew up going to church every Sunday, but I don't remember being taught that it was important to believe in creationism.  In fact, I don't recall any of my professors at OBU suggesting that young-earth creationism was true or required for Christians to believe.  Even Mike Keas, a former OBU biology professor and "intelligent design" proponent who now teaches at Southwestern Seminary's undergraduate program, seemed (to me) to think that young-earth was preposterous given the fossil record.

I, like many people, have been amazed by the resilience of Americans' professed belief in creationism, though I'm somewhat heartened that it's highly correlated with educational attainment.  But it wasn't until I became involved in Save OBU and started learning about the insular world of fundamentalist "higher education" that I even encountered the acronym YEC.

But just because I never really encountered YEC doesn't mean it's not out there.  It is.  It's a real force, as it turns out.  Of course, virtually no one outside of fundamentalist Protestantism takes YEC seriously (except maybe a few fundamentalist Muslims).  And to the extent that YEC becomes a hallmark of OBU's religion/apologetics department, OBU will be increasingly relegated to that ever narrower circle of fundamentalist institutions that like to speak (and occasionally fight) with one another, but are completely incapable of engaging the broader world.

Is YEC now a litmus test for employment in the Herschel H. Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry?    The theological implications are huge.  We are now to a point where fundamentalists will say they believe in things that are demonstrably false in order to preserve their belief in a literal Bible.  This is so different than the OBU I knew a mere 10 years ago.  At least one OBU trustees claims the gospel depends on a belief in a literal Adam and Eve.  For better or worse, this particular trustee could conceivably chair the board next year.

Also, just to clarify, I've tried hard not to put OBU professors (individually or collectively) in a more precarious position or put them on the spot in any way.  But you're not really going out on a limb to say that the sky is blue, not green.  So, I'll just say it: No professors at OBU (besides one or two of the recent religion hires) believe in young-earth creationism?  Right?

Right?!?