Save OBU: Bible freedom

Showing posts with label Bible freedom. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Censoring Higher Education: The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963

Our use of the word "critical" in regard to Old Testament scholarship is to denote those scholars who are not willing to accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ in regard to the Old Testament. That is, they are not willing to accept what he says and approach the Old Testament by substituting their own reason for His Lordship. [4]

Others accused Elliott of not affirming the foundational Christian doctrines such as the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, with some going so far as to question his salvation and call him an unbeliever [5]. Elliott was characterized as a "liberal" in the style of the 1920s controversy, insinuating a connection between his work and the modernism and Darwinism of the first fundamentalist controversy. Such accusations divided conservatives and moderates in the SBC. The fundamentalists controlled the terms of the debate, and if one affirmed the truth of the Bible (something all Southern Baptists did passionately), then that person must also deny the truth of The Message of Genesis.

Oklahoma Baptists were among the most critical of Elliott, and at a meeting of Elliott's critics in Oklahoma City, a plan was devised to elect trustees to Midwestern Seminary who would support their opposition to Elliott [6]. Furthermore, the furious controversy soon raised the threat that Midwestern Seminary would lose Cooperative Program funding. Initially an ardent supporter of both Elliott and his book, only then did seminary president Millard Berquist cave to fundamentalist pressure [7]. Finally, in October of 1962, Elliott was brought before the seminary trustees where they insisted that he withdraw the book from further publication. Elliott refused and was dismissed from his position—notably not for his theological views but for his denial of the administrators' request. While SBC did not officially ban the book, Broadman Press ceased publication of The Message of Genesis, and Midwestern Seminary continued to be controlled by outside interest groups [8].

The controversy did not end with Elliott's dismissal from Midwestern. It continued to reverberate throughout the convention. At the 1962 Convention meeting in San Francisco, prior to Elliott's removal, it was proposed that a committee be formed to revise the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. Led by Herschel Hobbs, president of the SBC and the pastor of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City. Again in response to fundamentalist controversy and pressure, Southern Baptists reformulated the Baptist Faith and Message.

The Confession of 1963
For many years prior to Elliott’s book, there had been a growing sentiment that the Convention was becoming more liberal in its theology. Herschel Hobbs felt that “this book was not so much the cause as it was the occasion of the situation which developed following its publication” [9]. With much work and careful study, Hobbs and the Baptist Faith and Message Committee recommended the 1963 confession. It was approved overwhelmingly by the messengers of the convention in Kansas City [10].

The 1963 BFM remained fairly moderate in the face of denominational conflict and once again proved to be a mediator between moderates and fundamentalists [11]. As in 1925, its language was sufficiently vague to allow for interpretation, but it was also specific enough to describe how Baptists approached faith and the Bible in general. It reflected its engagement with the fundamentalist movement through two primary changes: (1) an emphasis on the Lordship of Christ and (2) a more restrictive view of Christian education.

When comparing the confessions of 1925 and 1963, one of the notable differences is the amount of times language was added that mentions Jesus Christ and his relationship to the believer or the church. Mention of Jesus was added a total of fifteen times to the 1963 confession. Two of the most important areas in which this is evident are the articles on “The Scriptures” and “The Church.”

In the article on “The Scriptures,” the 1963 BFM additionally describes the Bible as “the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man" [12]. It also concludes with the new sentence, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" [13]. In the article on "The Church," the committee revision made special note that the "church...is under the Lordship of Jesus Christ" in which "members are equally responsible" [14]. (Further articles such as "The Kingdom" and "Last Things were significantly altered to emphasize the role of Christ as well.)

The language of the Lordship of Christ was open enough to allow for interpretation, acting as a bridge between the more moderate and the fundamentalist voices in the SBC. Elliott himself was a committed Christian who frequently supplied pulpits throughout Missouri and Kansas before his dismissal, and he saw his work as an expression of his faith in Christ and study of the Bible. Fundamentalists likewise understood their actions and positions as consistent with their understanding of the gospel and submission to Christ's lordship. While the two groups did not agree on the particulars, they could agree on language. Even so, such language also recalled fundamentalist objections such as those of John Havlik who criticized Elliott as being un-Christian.

The other arena of the 1963 BFM that specifically dealt with the fundamentalist crisis was the article on “Education.” Three sentences were added that demonstrated a clear connection with the Elliott Controversy.

In Christian education, there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary, is limited by the pre-eminence of Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purposes for which the school exists. [15]

Despite the goal of continuing to preserve unity among members of the SBC, the 1963 BFM endorsed both the removal of Elliott and the censorship of his book. In this article, the connection between the objections of fundamentalists such as Havlik and the Lordship of Christ becomes very clear. The statement in the 1925 BFM that "the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is coordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive ...the liberal support of the churches" was removed.

Baptist Distinctives and Fundamentalism
These two shifts within the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message represent the beginning of a radical break with Baptist distinctives. Traditional freedoms such as soul freedom were preserved almost intact. Emphasizing the Lordship of Christ did not seek to impose any document on an individual, but it did mark a small shift in the direction towards a more centralized control. It proved that those who convince others that their position was the most Christian had significant leverage within the denomination's official theology and power structure. Although the prominence of Jesus did not attack any of the freedoms, its use by fundamentalists paved the way for their removal.

Nonetheless, the “Education” article was a direct refutation of Bible freedom. By redefining Christian education, the confession was limiting what was taught in seminaries. Rather than allowing students and laypersons to respond to the Bible themselves—in agreement or disagreement with Elliott's work guided by the Spirit of Christ—, it subtly began to endorse an official doctrine that would define how Baptists could relate and respond to God and the Bible. Furthermore, by limiting academic freedom, the confession gave credibility to the firing of Ralph Elliott, the banning of his book in all but name only, and the tactics used by his opponents to manipulate the board of Midwestern Seminary. Ultimately, those tactics would be used again to alter the course of the SBC as a whole and eventually to bring all of the convention's seminaries in line with its new direction.

However, the greatest threat to Baptist freedom came in the call for the confession in 1962. The motion asked for a statement “which may serve as guidelines to the various agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention” [16]. Built into the very mission of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, credalism was creeping into the SBC.

__________

Endnotes

Ralph Elliott, The Genesis Controversy and Continuity in Southern Baptist Chaos: A Eulogy for a Great Tradition (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1992), 11.
Ibid., 55-56.
Quoted in Elliott, 49.
Ibid.
Jerry L. Faught, "The Ralph Elliott Controversy: Competing Philosophies of Southern Baptist Seminary Education," Baptist History and Heritage 34, no. 3 (1999), http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_3_34/ai_94161019/?tag=content;col1 (accessed June 19, 2012).
Elliott, 53.
Faught.
Herschel Hobbs, “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: A Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions,” Review and Expositor 76, no. 1 (1976), 55-6.
Ibid., 58-60.
Elliott, 125.
Hobbs, 62.
The Baptist Standard, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” The Baptist Standard Online [database on-line]; available from http://www.batiststandard.com/postnuke/themes/PostNukeBlue/comparison.html; Internet; accessed 6 November 2004.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Baptist Distinctives and the Fundamentalist Movement

Understanding Fundamentalism Series
Part 1 - Understanding Fundamentalism
Part 2 - Baptist Distinctives and the Fundamentalism Movement
Part 3 - Preserving Unity: The Baptist Faith and Message of 1925
Part 4 - Censoring Higher Education: The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963
Part 5 - The New Credalism: The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000
Part 6 - Fundamentalism and the Future of Baptist Higher Education
__________

It has often been said that whenever one finds two Baptists discussing theology, at least three opinions will be present on any particular issue. While this may be an exaggeration, it recognizes the considerable amount of theological diversity existing among those who call themselves Baptists. When speaking of Baptist theology, it is better to look at four anchors to which Baptists attach themselves and which shape their life and polity. They have been identified by Walter Shurden as the Four Fragile Freedoms.

Veronica has already summarized Shurden's approach to understanding Baptist theology. However, to avoid forcing you to click over to that series, I will briefly summarize them and highlight the relevant points for our present discussion. (For a more in-depth treatment, please click over—it will be worth your time.)

Distinctives of Baptist Theology
Baptists have traditionally been supporters of freedom both throughout the denomination at large and among organizations outside the church. Shurden distinguishes four doctrines that are among the most historically essential to the Baptists identity, and all four concern understandings of freedom. The four Baptist distinctives are soul freedom, Bible freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom [1].

Soul freedom is the principle that all people have the responsibility to deal with God and that they should be free from any external restraint to do so [2].  It is from this principle that the Baptist affirmation of the priesthood of all believers springs. Baptist Historian and OBU Professor Emeritus Slayden Yarbrough defines the priesthood of all believers as “a highly individualistic approach to religion. Each person stands before God with the choice of deciding whether to be in or out of fellowship with him" [3].  Historically, this has been one of the most important doctrines in Baptist theology, and while the four freedoms are interrelated, the strength of the others spring from this commitment to the priesthood of all believers. Indeed, E. Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs—respective chairs of the 1925 and 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Committees—maintained that soul freedom (they referred to is as "soul competency") is the chief, most distinguishing mark of Baptist theology [4].

Furthermore, Baptists have rejected creeds—and at times been very suspicious of confessions—because of their commitment to soul freedom. Creeds are considered to be documents that are authoritative, binding a religious community to its constraints [5].  Conversely, confessions are documents that function as an expression of the thoughts and beliefs of a religious community without committing any individual to its principles [6].  In other words, confessions express generally held beliefs without binding individuals within a religious community to them. Southern Baptists were so suspicious of both creeds and confessions that at the SBC’s inauguration in 1845, the explicit understanding was that the new Convention needed no creed except the Bible [7]. Implicitly, the convention accepted The New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 as descriptive of its members but without any official sanction.

Consequently, Bible freedom is the conviction that the Bible is to be central to all facets of Baptist life, and all Christians are given the liberty to study it as they will [8].  Baptists do not accept a priestly class that separates them from their ability to read the Bible and to study it for themselves. The centrality of the Bible has often fueled the many controversies of the SBC. During each of the fundamentalist controversies—in the 1920s, the 1960s, and the 1980s and mid-90s—, both sides argued their positions from the Bible. Though Baptists may differ in their approaches to Scripture, its importance has been a unifying feature in the history of the SBC.

Church freedom is the belief that local churches submit only to the lordship of Jesus Christ and are free from one another in all matters of polity, membership, practice, and affiliation [9].  The national convention, state convention, and regional associations have no power over the individual church. Acting as an autonomous unit, the individual church participates in each of these institutions voluntarily, and membership in one is not required by membership in another. For example, it would not be impossible for a church to be a member of the national convention without being a member of the state convention or a local association. The autonomy of the local church is considered as the “corporate expression” of the priesthood of all believers [10], and all of Baptist polity is shaped by the principle of church freedom.

Religious freedom, as defined by Shurden, is “freedom OF religion, freedom FOR religion, and freedom FROM religion, insisting that Caesar is not Christ and Christ is not Caesar" [11].  From their roots as English Separatists—politically oppressed in England and the colonies and United States—Baptists have held from their beginning that all men have the responsibility to respond to God and must have the freedom to do so without intervention. John Leland, a Baptist leader in Massachusetts and Virginia wrote in 1791, “Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing” [12]. Despite their dramatic commitment to religious freedom, Leland's view were traditional and long-held among the Baptists of his time. The first book published in the English language that argued for a complete and total form of religious liberty was A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, written in 1611-1612 by the Baptist founder Thomas Helwys [13]. Helwys personally sent a copy to King James I (in the same year that his King James Version of the Bible was published), and he was arrested soon after by the British crown for his religious views. Helwys died in Newgate Prison in 1616 [14].

As we shall see in the coming days, during the fundamentalist controversies, three centuries of Baptist distinctives were under continual assault. The attacks were not random or peripheral damage from more central issues. Rather, they demonstrated both the incompatibility of traditional Baptist theology and fundamentalism as well as the intensity and militancy of the new movement. The attack on the priesthood of all believers was especially intense, and as a result, Southern Baptist theology has been intrinsically changed. To understand how a doctrine foundational to the faith and message of Baptists throughout history has been institutionally removed—in all but name only—not only demonstrates the fragility of the freedoms but also as the strength and power of fundamentalism.

Roots of Fundamentalism
George Marsden identifies two fronts for the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s: pre-millennial dispensational theology and a militant opposition to the theory of evolution in American society [15]. In the late nineteenth century, science was undergoing a change that would separate it from the authority of the Bible. Soon, a commitment to the authority of science and the accuracy of the Bible—as understood in a post-Enlightenment ideology—would not be possible or tolerated by many Christians and modernists. When individuals were confronted with this dichotomy, their typical response was an extreme devotion to one side or the other [16], and as the other cultural foundations of the evangelical worldview became progressively more independent of Christianity, a new theology began to emerge among evangelicals known as premillennialism, part of an interpretation of history called dispensationalism.

Premillennialism contended that the society would grow worse until Christ returned with the saints to judge humankind and set up his millennial kingdom. This eschatology (theology of the end of human time) insisted that present culture was beyond repair, and that the spiritual decline evangelicals were witnessing was part of God’s ultimate and divine plan [17].

Dispensationalism divides human history into seven dispensations beginning with Adam and ending with Christ's millennial reign—current Christians being in the Church Dispensation, the sixth and final one before the Second Coming. Each dispensation ended with the God-ordained increase in wickedness and subsequent judgment. Personal piety and proper doctrine became so important to the movement that it was impossible to separate the two ideals. As a result, fundamentalists championed extreme militancy—in other words, vigorous and aggressive action—as the only way to remain faithful to the Bible and to God [18].

One of Clarence Larkin's many charts of the history of humankind

Premillennial dispensationalism, then, held to a radical form of supernaturalism and a hyper-literal reading of the Bible that removed all human elements from the inspiration process. Not only was the Bible accurate and reliable, but all of reality was subject to its scrutiny—including science. From the fusion of dispensationalism and of Baconian science, a new conceptualization of biblical authority emerged—the inerrancy of the Bible—, becoming the chief rallying cry for fundamentalists [19]. (The early-Enlightenment philosophy of Francis Bacon was a cultural assumption both fundamentalists and modernists held in common.)

World War I was the impetus that transformed the fundamentalist movement into a militant, anti-modern phenomenon. Prior to World War I, premillennialists opposed all social reforms, but in the wake of the hyper-patriotism of the post-war years, they became convinced that to preserve Christianity, they must preserve America, the bastion of Christ on earth [20]. Certain that the new liberalism among Christian ranks was apostasy—especially since since recent developments in biblical scholarship were German in origin—the newly-christened fundamentalists became radically opposed to it and to evolution—also tied to Germany through Friedrich Nietzsche’s use of social Darwinism [21]. They argued that the only way to preserve the morals of a Christian nation was in the schools, and, as a result, fundamentalism reached its height in the 1920s [22].

From 1920 to 1925, America was at war with itself. In the arena of the church, fundamentalists battled liberalism and aggressively supported dispensational theology. In the arena of the society at large, evolution was the main target. Southern laws against teaching evolution led to the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee [23]. William Jennings Bryan, a key anti-evolutionist leader, attempted to win by the use of sarcastic stunts, public embarrassment of evolutionists, and vitriolic taunts. However, his sure-to-win plan backfired, and Clarence Darrow, the defense lawyer, ridiculed Bryan’s lack of scientific knowledge, portraying him as a buffoon [24]. As the dominant cultural assumptions about the Bible had shifted, the modernists won the trial and the debate, and the fundamentalist movement—now the source of widespread ridicule—began to stall. Bryan died only a few days after his disgrace at the trial, intensifying the depth of his and the movement's public failure [25].

All over the United States, the combination of the extremism of the fundamentalists' position and the embarrassment of the “Monkey Trial” caused many who had previously supported the movement to vacillate. In the two strongest denominations fueling the controversy, Northern Baptists and Presbyterians, more moderate voices made decisive inroads for the sake of denominational loyalty. In 1926, only a year after the heyday of fundamentalism, it seemed as if the fight was over for most.

Southern Baptists and Fundamentalism in the 1920s
In the Southern Baptist Convention, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy did not reach the levels that it did in other denominations. Culturally and theologically, the South was more conservative, and the debate was never between the modernists and fundamentalists but between the fundamentalists and the conservatives and moderates—those who tried to hold to versions of pre-controversy views of the Bible and science or who were opposed to the militancy of the fundamentalists despite general theological agreement [26].

Even so, the pressure nearly caused a schism in the Southern Baptist Convention. In order to define itself in the face of the controversy and to preserve unity, the denomination issued its first confession in 1925—The Baptist Faith and Message [27]. The confession walked a fine line between the varying views held by Southern Baptists, attempting to appease the minority fundamentalists' doctrinal rigidity without alienating the majority of its members.

This is the subject to which we will turn tomorrow.

__________

Endnotes

Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993), 4-5.
Ibid., 23.
Slayden A. Yarbrough, Southern Baptists: A Historical, Ecclesiological, and Theological Heritage of a Confessional People (Nashville: Southern Baptist Historical Society and Fields Publishing, 2000), 28.
Mark Wingfield, "Mohler Criticizes Mullins' Influence and Doctrine of Soul Competency," The Baptist Standard, April 17, 2000.
Jeff B. Pool, Against Returning to Egypt: Exposing and Resisting Credalism in the Southern Baptist Convention (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1998), 8-10.
Ibid., 10-16.
Jesse C. Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention: A Sesquicentennial History (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 48.
Shurden, 9.
Ibid., 33.
Yarbrough, 29.
Shurden, 45.
John Leland, “The Rights of Conscience Inalienable” (1791), 184; quoted in Shurden, 50.
Yarbrough, 116.
Brian Haymes, "On Religious Liberty: Re-reading A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity in London in 2005," The Baptist Quarterly 42, no. 3 (2007), 198-9.
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980), 164.
Ibid., 20.
James J. Thompson, Jr. Tried as by Fire: Southern Baptists and the Religious Controversies of the 1920s (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1982), 54, 91-2.
Marsden, 46.
Ibid., 56.
Thompson, 43-4.
Marsden, 148.
Ibid., 160.
Thompson, 131.
William E. Ellis, “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), 163.
Marsden, 187-190.
Ellis, 41.
Herschel Hobbs, “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: A Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions,” Review and Expositor 76, no. 1 (1976), 55-6.

Friday, April 20, 2012

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.