Understanding Fundamentalism

Much ink has been spilled here at Save OBU about fundamentalism.  The issue goes to the heart of our argument that the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Baptist University of right and ought to be free and independent entities—that all political connection between them ought to be dissolved.  Legally, of course, this is very tricky as the BGCO owns OBU outright.  However, it is our argument that the fundamentalist nature and mission of the BGCO is incompatible with and indeed hostile to a Christian (and unashamedly Baptist) liberal arts university.

So what do we mean by the word fundamentalism?  —Especially, what do we mean by using fundamentalism in reference to the BGCO and the wider denominational context of the Southern Baptist Convention?  That is the subject of this week's series of posts.

The Understanding Fundamentalism Series
Our goal at Save OBU this week is one of clarification.  Only at the end will we present our conclusions and opinions about the role of Baptist higher education in the context of fundamentalism and wider denominational issues.  As such, the series will be heavily research-based, and I will be documenting my sources as much as possible.  In fact, the series is an adaptation and update of a paper written during my time at OBU.  The paper—"Confessions of Crisis: The Impact of the Fundamentalist Movement on Baptist Distinctives in the Southern Baptist Convention"—won the Gaskin Baptist History Award at OBU and the Mercer Baptist Heritage Student Essay Award at Mercer University.
The focus of the Understanding Fundamentalism series will be the three confessions put forward by Southern Baptists—the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925, 1963, and 2000.  (A very helpful, side-by-side synopsis of the three confessions can be found on the SBC website.)  As we shall see, these confessions illuminate well the shift within Southern Baptist thought throughout the last century.

Initially, the convention held neither creed nor confession at its formation in 1845, relying instead on the commonly understood acceptance of The New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833.  However, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy nearly split the denomination and led to the adoption of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message as a necessary measure to maintain unity among Southern Baptists on both sides of debate.  Then, in 1963, the Convention saw fit to clarify and alter the confession in response to the controversy inspired by Midwestern Seminary professor Ralph Elliott and his book The Message of Genesis (in which he took a non-literal approach to understanding the Genesis creation accounts).  Finally, in 2000, the Baptist Faith and Message was revised as a conclusion to the Conservative Resurgence or Fundamentalist Takeover and as an expression of the denomination's new identity.   Each event had its roots in the fundamentalist movement, and at each alteration of the institutional expression of Southern Baptists' faith, the fundamentalist movement in some fashion or other influenced those official declarations.

Defining Fundamentalism
As I hope is clear by now, fundamentalism—as Save OBU is using the term—refers to the specific, historical movement beginning at the turn of the twentieth century and continuing in various forms in the Southern Baptist Convention today.  Historian George Marsden identifies two primary emphases for the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s:  the theology of pre-millennial dispensationalism and a militant opposition to the scientific theory of evolution [1].  I will go into more detail about the history, theology, and politics of these terms and the movement tomorrow.  For now, it is enough to say that Save OBU has and will continue to use the term as it is defined academically and historically.

Let us be honest, there is a lot of confusion about what qualifies as fundamentalism today.  In popular usage, the term is taken as an acceptable substitute for extremism.  Therefore, we can speak of Christian Fundamentalists, Muslim Fundamentalists, Secular Fundamentalists, Market Fundamentalists, and so on.  Such usage implies strongly negative connotations.  All but a few claim the term for themselves.  In popular culture, it is an accusation—a label thrust upon others as means to marginalize their beliefs and actions.

Despite Save OBU's efforts to be fair and balanced toward the BGCO, the SBC, and the forces that have contributed to OBU's recent decline, we cannot avoid the connotations associated with using the term fundamentalism.  We hope that you understand that we are not using the term as pejorative or a label in a passive-aggressive power move.  Rather, we continue to use the term as an accurate description of a specific historical movement as it has developed throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

To continue being honest, Save OBU has made it clear that we believe that fundamentalism and the Christian (and Baptist) liberal arts tradition should not be mixed.  Even so, despite our frustrations with the fundamentalist leadership of OBU, the BGCO, and others, we have no interest in marginalizing their voices or challenging their theology.  Our sole concern is the protection and preservation of the academic and educational heritage of OBU.  It is our belief that a true, Christian liberal arts university will give voice and time to the whole spectrum of human thought—whether Christian or non-Christian, fundamentalist or moderate—and trust the Spirit of God to work in the hearts and minds of its students as they search after God's truth.

The Series Schedule
The rest of the week, we will be discussing more specifically the history of the fundamentalist movement, its engagement with historic Baptist distinctives in the SBC, and the influence this conflict has had on the various versions of the Baptist Faith and Message:

June 17 - Understanding Fundamentalism
June 18 - Baptist Distinctives and the Fundamentalism Movement
June 19 - Preserving Unity:  The Baptist Faith and Message of 1925
June 20 - Censoring Higher Education:  The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963
June 21 - The New Credalism:  The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000
June 22 - Fundamentalism and the Future of Baptist Higher Education

We at Save OBU look forward to you joining us in this investigation into our history and identity as Baptists.  We hope the journey will be revealing and further establish the foundations of our argument for OBU-BGCO separation.

For those interested in a more in-depth treatment of these topics, enjoy the following:

Classic noteworthy texts:

• Marsden, George M.  Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925.  New York: Oxford, 1980.
• McBeth, H. Leon.  The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness.  Nashville: Broadman, 1987.
• Shurden, Walter B.  The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms.  Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.

Other relevant texts:

• Ellis, William E.  “A Man of the Books and a Man of the People”: E. Y. Mullins and the Crisis of Moderate Southern Baptist Leadership.  Macon, GA:  Mercer UP, 1985.
• Humphreys, Fisher. The Way We Were: How Southern Baptist Theology has Changed and What it Means to All of Us. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002.
• Yarbrough, Slayden A.  Southern Baptists: A Historical, Ecclesiological, and Theological Heritage of a Confessional People.  Nashville:  Southern Baptist Historical Society and Fields, 2000.

__________

Endnotes

1. George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980), 45.

Bible Freedom

Baptists did not write the bible.

No, indeed, we did not. We inherited it from the larger church and we still share it with them. And as such as the story goes, it would be irresponsible to claim we are the only ones who know what to do with it or what truth comes out of it.

As Shurden breaks it  down, Bible freedom means a few things:

Bible freedom means freedom under the Lordship of Christ.

Historically, Baptists have also affirmed the preeminence of Christ over the words on the page. However, in 2000 (post-takeover) the Baptist Faith and Message was changed from saying Jesus is the "criterion by which the bible is to be interpreted" to "all scripture is a testimony to Christ." This is a small change, except that many of the most political stances which come from the bible have been fought against with the claim-- well, Jesus never said anything about that. But, no longer! For Jesus is no longer the rule, but only the message. Now, we can remake Jesus into whatever message we find in the bible.

The 2000 BF&M also removed the clause on the authority of Jesus, "The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ"which is found in the 1963 version.

So there have been some interesting changes to make the current interpretation of the words of the Bible lord, instead of making Jesus lord. This was not the spirit of Bible freedom.

So now, the static words of the page have been exalted over the dynamic presence of Christ, restricting freedom of interpretation. That's why so many institutions which stay affiliated with their convention are going through a sort of doctrinal purging. No longer are we free to interpret, we are stuck in our old understandings and knowing exactly what the bible means already.

Bible freedom means freedom to obey the word.

Something we seem to have forgotten: the word of God is not the Bible. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. But God has certainly promised to speak through the Bible, and through the words on the page, the living and active Word of God may be heard.

That is not to say the Bible is unimportant. By no means. The scriptures testify to Christ, and as such, they are the sole authority for Baptists. (Although, for this idea we probably need to thank Luther more than any of our specific founding forerunners.)

But listen to what Shurden says about the founding Baptists and their understanding of the truth gleaned from the Bible:

"For Baptists, the Bible is and always has been the final authority... the Bible is final, but human understanding of the Bible is never final or complete or finished... Baptists did not begin and apparently did not intend to live out their faith as a static, rigidly fixed, inflexible group of disciples. They did not arrive at The truth in every area of life and then determine to pass it on to succeeding generations. What they arrived at was an attitude of openness to the ongoing study of the Bible..."

He goes on to quote from the 1963 BF&M which discusses a living faith rooted in Jesus who is ever the same. Thus, the authority is Jesus. "A living faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation."

Yes! That is what Baptists were saying about themselves in 1963! Of course, that statement has been revised in the 2000 BF&M to say, "Our living faith is established on eternal truths," which sounds similar, but is just different enough to sound a lot more like, "We aren't wrong... for eternity."

Remaining true to Bible freedom not only allows, but encourages diversity. Yes, this is dangerous, but the alternative is to become stagnant and irrelevant unto death "resulting from unbending dogmatism." As Shurden says, "Built into [this approach] is the idea that our understandings of the Bible change... with this birthright of freedom and faithfulness... no Christian communion should be better able to meet the changing challenges of the contemporary world than Baptists."

Although recently Bible freedom has been hidden away under disguised creedalism, it is one of our most precious gifts and should be celebrated-- especially for those looking to prepare the leaders of tomorrow in a Liberal Arts University.

To be a people free to change and respond to the changes of life is to be the exact people of faith who can take seriously both faith and education. I do not need to fear the coming together of my faith and learning because my faith is flexible and will not break. I am free to respond to everything I learn, trusting that God is faithful. Perhaps this is what our founding Baptists had in mind in 1910 when they chose a University over a seminary for their little state.

Bible freedom means freedom from all other authorities.

Believe it or not, Baptists are non-creedal people. That does not mean they reject the ancient creeds of faith, but rather that no document (even the BF&M) is the norm for Baptist beliefs. Only the Bible can be that.

To be sure, Baptists have confessions. But those are expressions of what certain Baptists believed at a certain time. They are in no way normative for the whole of the Baptist church. Even the BF&M is actually titled, "A statement of the Baptist Faith and Message." It is only a statement--  not a creed. Even the 2000 BF&M says that it is not complete or infallible and Baptists should be free to revise it whenever it seems wise or expedient to do so. Further, the BF&M should not "hamper freedom of thought or investigation."

But what has happened? As Shurden puts it, the story usually goes like this. 1) Strong statement of aversion to any creed in favor of freedom. 2) A group arises which calls for strict orthodoxy. 3) This group issues a call for a statement to safeguard orthodoxy. 4) They call for the imposition of such a statement to guarantee orthodoxy. -- Now we are creedal.

This is exactly what happened at the SBC seminaries, post-takeover. Suddenly professors were required to sign documents detailing specific beliefs about gender and other peripheral matters. This is what is happening at Shorter with the lifestyle statement. This is what's happening at OBU with Dr. Norman's crazy ideological barrage of interview questions. It is NOT Baptist, it is fundamentalist.

Thus, if professors at any Baptist institution are asked to sign anything which is not the Bible itself, the institution is no longer acting Baptist.

Finally, Bible freedom means freedom of interpretation.

It is the right and responsibility of each individual to seek and find their own understanding of the Bible.

It does not mean anything goes. Rather it means that the Bible should be taken seriously and our best scholarship should be used to understand it.

It seems to me that a Baptist University is the best place to do that. There, we may seek to learn in order that we may better understand our Holy Book. We may disagree and discuss and come to varying conclusions, but that is the only way to take this most important document seriously.

So letting Dr. Norman, or Anthony Jordan, or the BGCO, or the BF&M, or any other authority interpret the Bible for us is not only against what it means to be educated, it is against what it means to be Baptist. The two ideals go hand in hand. Because we take seriously the rights and freedoms of each individual to come to this book with their own mind and conscience, we must educate them.

If we decide we already knows what it means, we are not only being bad students, we are being bad Baptists.


Sources: Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Pub, 1993.

The Downward Spiral: Truett-McConnell Faculty Succumbs to Creedalism

In this series, we are looking at what happens when once-strong Christian liberal arts universities are taken over by fundamentalists.  Invariably, state convention power brokers force administrators to degrade the academic quality and integrity of the institution, or else they nudge trustees into hiring administrators who will do the conventions' dirty work.  Yesterday, we celebrated that -- thanks to a large, diverse, and growing activist network -- OBU's devolution into a fundamentalist Bible academy appears to be slowing.

The Save OBU movement, as most of you know, comes on the heels of spirited protests by students, faculty, alumni, and retired faculty against the new and unprecedented direction OBU administrators seem to want to take our beloved University.  Acknowledging our debt to those thoughtful students, courageous faculty, concerned alumni, and angry retirees, we claimed a victory yesterday after 4+ months and 100+ blog posts:

OBU will not carry out any ideologically-motivated dismissals this summer.

We coud be wrong, of course.  But at this point, we just don't believe the political will exists for them to go through with it again.  I hate to dare them to try it.  But we are confident that, at this point, the costs outweigh the benefits.  Let's make sure it stays that way.  If we let up our guard for an instant, their agenda will continue apace...

Which brings me to the aim of our Downward Spiral series.  Over the next three days, we'll examine three Southern Baptist colleges whose fundamentalist transformations are much more advanced than OBU's.  The point is to demonstrate how these efforts get started, how the state conventions are always involved, and what to look out for to prevent these kinds of things from happening at our beloved OBU.

Truett-McConnell College (Cleveland, Georgia)
Named for longtime (and, ironically, relatively moderate) pastors in Dallas and Atlanta, TMC has been working hard to beef up and brandish its super-Baptist credentials since the Georgia Baptist Convention parted ways with Mercer University in 2007.  No matter how far to the fundamentalist side the GBC goes, TMC is ready to follow its lead.  The watershed year was 2009.  That year, TMC elected 37 year-old Emir Caner president.  Despite his relative youth, Caner had been a darling of the fundamentalists for some time.  A convert from Islam, Caner and his brother penned the book that former SBC President Jerry Vines cited when he claimed in 2002 that the Prophet Mohammed was a "demon-possessed pedophile."  Caner was the founding dean of the College at Southwestern, an undergraduate program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, TX.  Though they won't come right out and say it, the College was formed by fundamentalists stung by the loss they suffered in trying to take over the Baptist General Convention of Texas and its affiliated colleges.

Later in 2009, TMC trustees announced that they would require faculty assent to the Baptist Faith and Message, a creed confession of faith altered in 2000 to reflect more clearly today's Baptists' obsession with female subordination.  (Rev. Dr. Anthony Jordan, the top BGCO executive, chaired the committee that wrote the "Submissive Women" article (Article XXVIII) in the BFM.)  In order to give some broad context, I will quote liberally from Bob Allen's December 28, 2009 article in Associated Baptist Press:

CLEVELAND, Ga. (ABP) -- Truett-McConnell College in northeast Georgia plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message as revised by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000. 

[...] 

"The Georgia Baptist Convention and our churches deserve nothing less than a faculty that will abide by nothing less than the essentials of the faith," said Truett-McConnell President Emir Caner, according to the Georgia Baptist Christian Index. 

"Institutions that do not faithfully support the theology of Southern Baptists do not deserve the faithful support of Southern Baptists," Caner said. 

The policy runs counter to other historically Baptist colleges and universities that in recent decades have loosened or severed ties with sponsoring state conventions. Most have done so to prevent pressure to force their professors to move from moderate theology to the more conservative ideology imposed upon SBC seminaries in the 1980s and 1990s. 

[...] 

"The 20th century saw the degradation of sound, biblical theology," Caner said. "But thankfully on a national level our seminaries, mission agencies, the [SBC] Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and our other agencies are now faithful to the Word of God, but we can't say the same about all our state Baptist colleges. I will stand on the Baptist Faith and Message."

It's unclear to me whether the trustees, the GBC, or Camer himself came up with this idea.  If anyone knows more about the particulars of this situation, please let us know: SaveOBU@gmail.com.  But it's certainly alarming when you have a president who is clearly in lockstep with the politically powerful SBC elites who long ago abandoned any commitment to academic freedom, academic integrity, or academic respectability.  Even worse is when you have a board of trustees that is willing to not only accede to this brazen fundamentalist demand, but did so unanimously.  Not only that, but TMC's religion department chair enthusiastically greeted the change, saying that not only would all religion faculty gladly sign the BFM.  And it's not that TMC hadn't gone down this road before.  TMC faculty -- regardless of department or field -- have long been required to sign a statement on biblical inerrancy. 

TMC Celebrates Its Descent into Creedalism
Because Dr. Camer wanted to handle this situation "pastorally," he gave a full 18 months before he fired everyone who didn't a) assent to every word of the divinely inspired politically conceived BFM and/or b) thought being forced to sign a creed was an inappropriate or unconscionable intrusion upon what used to be cherished Baptist freedoms.  I don't know how many people resigned in protest.  I would suspect not many because TMC has apparently been a fundamentalist institution for some time.  Neither US News nor Forbes even bother ranking Truett-McConnell, a death knell that these fundamentalists probably consider a badge of honor.  It maintains SACS accreditation for now, but TMC's accreditation renewal could get ugly -- and that's saying something given how much latitude mainstream accreditation bodies give religious schools.

On October 27, 2011, faculty signed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.  The date was rescheduled from August in order to accomodate Rev. Dr. Paige Patterson, who delivered the keynote address at the signing.  Patterson, you probably know, is president of SWBTS, was an original architect of the Fundamentalist Takeover, and was president of the SBC when the 2000 revision was adopted.

Could this Happen at OBU?
Read and consider the following hypothetical press release:

Shawnee, Okla. -- The college that leads the nation in providing missionaries for the International Mission Board has strengthened its commitment to Southern Baptist principles, announcing today that all of its 85 faculty have signed the Baptist Faith and Message. 

"The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and our churches deserve nothing less than a faculty that will abide by nothing less than the essentials of faith," said President David Whitlock.  "Institutions that do not faithfully support the theology of Southern Baptists do not deserve the faithful support of Southern Baptists." 

College of Theology and Ministry Dean Mark McClellan said that he has long been comfortable with the idea, saying that he would question why any believing Southern Baptist wouldn't sign the statement. 

Likely impossible only a few years ago, a more activist and unified Board of Trustees unanimously affirmed the change.  Though OBU lost some longtime professors over the issue, the university gave them ample time to secure new employment elsewhere.  The BGCO now proudly boasts on its website that OBU joins a growing number of Baptist colleges that ensures faculty faithfulness to consensus Southern Baptist beliefs.

Does that sound even remotely far-fetched to you?  Substitue TMC for OBU, the GBC for the BGCO, Camer for Whitlock, and TMC Dean Sam Pelletier for McClellan and you have exactly what was said about the recent policy at Truett-McConnell.

So yes, this could indeed happen at OBU.  But it's not inevitable.  Important differences remain.  First among them is the trustee situation.  At present, it seems very unlikely that OBU's trustees would go along with something so radical and unprecedented.  Though there does seem to be a tendency to act by consensus that limits the clout of more moderate trustees (how many of them spoke up about the forced dismissals?), there is just no way OBU trustees would approve of this change unanimously.

Second, David Whitlock is no Emir Camer.  Camer is a theologically sophisticated ideologue.  While Whitlock may have good political instincts, no one thinks he is very interested in fighting these kinds of battles.  Several faculty have even described him as theologically naive and unsophisticated -- which is probably an asset if being like Emir Camer is the alternative.

Third, the TMC faculty was already much, much more doctrinaire and conservative before Camer came along than OBU's faculty.  Whereas TMC may have lost a few professors, OBU would likely lose dozens.  But make no mistake -- as we'll see in a few days, some Baptist college administrators and state convention officials see losing dozens of faculty as a good thing.

Fourth, the financial relationships may be completely different.  For all we know, after the Mercer vote in 2007, the three GBC colleges may have been going after this new pot of unallocated Mercer money. The BGCO's contribution to OBU is now so minimal as to be insignificant.  Though it would require some careful planning, OBU could rather easily survive without the BGCO's little subsidy.  Even if the BGCO tried some kind of sticks-and-carrots approach, well, the carrot is pretty tiny.  OBU could tell the BGCO to go jump in a lake.  In fact, we hope that day comes speedily and soon!

The only thing that makes this nightmare scenario more plausible is the difference between GBC Executive J. Robert White and our own Anthony Jordan.  Based on his published writings and the press clippings on the BFM issue at TMC, White seems to be much less of an ideologue, culture warrior, and SBC climber than Jordan.  In any case, White was wise not to leave his fingerprints all over TMC's change, for which President Camer and the trustees claimed responsibility.  If this happened in Oklahoma, it would almost certainly originate in Jordan's office, since neither Whitlock nor the trustees presently have the inclination to abandon historic Baptist freedoms, reverse precedent, and degrade OBU in such a dramatic way.

But make no mistake.  If we remain silent, this is precisely the kind of change we can expect to see at OBU.  Maybe not next year, maybe not even in 5 years.  But eventually.  Now that Whitlock and Norman have put the entire OBU constituency on alert, the BGCO will work harder than ever to make sure the "right" kind of trustees are elected this November and subsequently.  As it stands, Whitlock and the trustees know there is pressure from both sides.  If we remain vigilant, I'm confident we will prevail and disaster will be averted at OBU.  But if we back down and Norman, Jordan, and the BGCO have their way, OBU could be on its way to being just another barely accredited, academically irrelevant, has-been fundamentalist Bible academy like Truett-McConnell College in Georgia.

Women in Baptist Life

This has been a hard week for me.

I have been reminded as I have researched and written that the situation for women is a bleak one, both in the CCCU and at OBU.

And so sometimes I wonder, is there any hope for my people? Is it time to give up and join a mainline protestant church? Is it time to leave Baptist-land forever and go hang out with the people who seem to like me a lot better?

Let me share a bit more of my story.

Yesterday, I said that I was one of the lucky ones because I had found a community which had encouraged me and brought me back to life. Many may have assumed that the community to which I referred is the Disciples of Christ seminary which I now attend. And it is true that I have found such community there.

But I found it first at a Baptist church.

Immediately upon leaving OBU, I packed up my bags and moved my life to a church internship which I had landed for the summer. Granted, it was an internship in children's ministry-- which, if you know me at all, is hilarious. But in addition to playing with preschoolers and telling them that Jesus loves them, I was also there to continue to refine my calling to ministry. And there I served alongside women who are affirmed and ordained.

This particular church even has a well-regarded pastoral residency program which trains seminary graduates to be head pastors-- and specifically accepts both women and men.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to go to a church like that. Actually, as a Baptist I'm saying that's totally between you and God-- and however your church wants to run itself is completely up to that church. That's what freedom of conscience and priesthood of the believer is all about. Save OBU is not looking to crusade for women's right to be pastors.

But this story serves to illustrate what I am trying to say. The point is this: there is much diversity in Baptist life-- although you might not know it if you only look at the BGCO.

Our Baptist heritage is much more promising for women and for all who do not fit the skinny mold which characterizes the post-takeover SBC. In fact, it was not until the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that a clause was specifically added qualifying the position of pastor to men only. Before the year 2000, the Baptist Faith and Message said zero things about gender differences. ZERO.

There is indeed hope for my people. These oppressive ideas which have become policies (albeit, often unspoken ones) are not faithful to our past, but relatively recent innovations.

There are certain things evangelicals bring to the table, specific ideals which I cannot give up, certain reasons I have not been able to jump ship and leave. Evangelicals take scripture more seriously than most. Evangelicals believe that the individual is of infinite value to God. As a Baptist university, OBU should highlight and embrace these parts of its identity-- as well as the distinctive, historic Baptist freedoms. At Save OBU we have tried to highlight over and over again the great heritage which is belongs to our Baptist alma mater.

But these are not the things which have characterized the SBC since the 1980's. Suddenly, to be a Baptist did not mean to stand for freedom, but to stand against women, to boycott disney, and to define more and more narrowly what it means to be a Christian.

And suddenly at OBU, it means to ask invasive questions when hiring professors. It means to fire those who deviate from the narrow road. It means to demand of mainline brothers and sisters an explanation for why they have not become just exactly like us. It means to hide away the powerful women and keep them quiet and out of the boy's club. It means that it doesn't matter how students are treated, just so long as OBU is becoming a place of doctrinal purity.

So is the new OBU Baptist? Or is it catering to BGCO politics? Is the new administration looking to make a great school greater? Or are they playing to the preferences of the big boys in the Baptist building?

For OBU to remain true to its heritage, it must break ties with the BGCO.

Trustees Force Administrative Change (But Not at OBU , Sorry to Say)

Hope that headline didn't get your hopes up too much.

But it is worth noting that trustees of another Baptist institution, in this case Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, assertively intervened and forced the president's resignation last week.  The Rev. Dr. Phil Roberts resigned last Friday ahead of a specially-called trustee meeting to deal with questions about his leadership.  Every indication is that this guy was simply not a competent administrator.  He went through 11 financial officers in his 11 years at the helm of MBTS.  He was evidently a notorious micromanager, used funds for ostensibly personal uses, and got the seminary involved in an expensive building program.

The last two presidential tenures have been disastrous, and MBTS is surely an attractive target for the SBC's badly-needed seminary contraction effort.  I don't know enough to know whether MBTS differs in any substantial way from the other seminaries.  Therefore it's safe to assume that it is a thoroughly fundamentalist institution.  Unlike Southern and Southwestern, which used to actually be decent seminaries before the fundamentalists came in and absolutely destroyed them, I don't know if MBTS ever had pre-Takeover any "glory days," since it was only founded in 1957.  It might have been a fledgling institution all along.  They force faculty to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, and every indication is that MBTS, like the other SBC seminaries, turned their backs on academic freedom, open inquiry, soul competency, and the liberty of the conscience long ago.  Creedalism and fundamentalism seem to be the order of the day.

MBTS is not really any concern of ours.  But it is heartening to know that even a SBC-elected fundamentalist board of trustees was willing to force some changes when they were truly necessary.  Too often, cults of personality form around these leaders and the trustees are nothing more than a rubber stamp.  Fortunately, that is NOT true in our case.  Not all of our trustees are fundamentalists, and many of them surely have a loyalty to OBU's heritage and future that exceeds their loyalty to any one president (or convention leader who might influence their standing in BGCO circles).

Now we desperately need to engage OBU's trustees and demonstrate the urgent need for them to direct administrators to restore academic freedom, professors' right to teach, and students' right to learn.  Like other Southern Baptist institution boards, OBU's trustees frequently cast unanimous votes to do whatever the administration wants.  But eventually, we need some trustees to stand up and advocate for the heritage, reputation, and tradition that recent administrative actions have badly tarnished.  We need them to know it's okay to oppose Baptist Building elites.  Like the MBTS trustess who refused to allow the status quo to drag their institution down, we need OBU trustees to act by whatever means necessary to protect academic freedom at OBU and reverse the fundamentalist tide that is so dramatically deteriorating the quality of OBU's academic program.