MAINSTREAM MESSENGER
Vol. 3, No. 1 December 2000 Editor: Bruce Prescott
The Laity of the Land
Second year status report for Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists.
by Bob Stephenson
WHY WE FORMED
We formed a Mainstream organization to find ways to inform Oklahoma Baptists of the major changes that have occurred in the SBC and BGCO over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, very few pastors have had the courage to inform their congregation of the changes. As a result the vast majority (probably 90-95%) of Southern Baptists are uninformed. It is often said by those who are uninformed that they represent the middle or majority of Baptists who have opted to stay uninformed because they don’t want to be seen as taking sides. In my opinion, there is no middle position. The changes that have been and are still being implemented are draconian in nature. When one studies Baptist history there are some distinctives that, if not uniquely Baptist, are certainly strongly associated with us. Some of these distinctives are priesthood of the believer, autonomy of the local church, academic freedom, separation of church and state and the role of pastor as servant-shepherd. The Fundamentalist takeover is in the process of completely negating these timeless Baptist heritages. Can one be middle of the road on these issues? Not in my opinion. The middle of the road disappears when one becomes informed.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COOPERATIVE BAPTISTS AND MAINSTREAM BAPTISTS
One question that continually comes up is the difference between CBF and Mainstream. There is a very simple answer. CBF basically is an organization that is looking from the present to the future. They are primarily interested in missions, theological education and starting new churches. Many in CBF are battle weary from the controversy and want no further part of the battle, and that is certainly understandable.
On the other hand, MOB is an organization that was formed to not only look to the future but to also revisit the past. In some ways MOB activity is also mission-minded in that it feels a strong need to inform Oklahoma Baptists what has occurred in the SBC and BGCO. Once informed, the decision each individual makes is up to them.
STRATEGY
To start the educational process we decided that contacting Baptists directly was of the utmost importance. We have been very successful in that area. One of our best avenues of growth are names that you send. Please do so as often as you think of someone. We are interested in all Baptists, even out of state, but particularly names of people in Baptist churches in Oklahoma.
We strive in our articles to reach the highest levels of journalistic integrity and I believe we are doing that. It should be added, however, that journalistic integrity doesn’t mean we won’t write highly critical articles if circumstances justify such an article. (We have found there are no shortages of justifying circumstances.) In the final analysis you, as a reader, will evaluate our performance. Your comments or criticisms are welcomed.
FUTURE FOR MAINSTREAM
What are our plans for the future? Of course we will continue to locate more Baptists, but we also plan to become active in getting our message out across the state. Just how much more active will in large measure depend on your response to some ideas that will be presented later in this report. Ultimately, if Mainstream is going to play a part in Oklahoma Baptist denominational life, you as an Oklahoma Baptist must get involved. Your voice can only be heard if you come to the state convention as a messenger. It is most unfortunate that denominational leaders at both the national and state levels have taken their victories at the convention as a "mandate" to completely exclude from any representation at the seminaries, or on boards and agencies those who do not walk in lockstep with their agenda. The result of this that our schools no longer educate but indoctrinate. A true democracy exists only when you have a strong minority voice. There ought to be common agreement that it would be disastrous for our country if the president of the United States whether Democratic or Republican, could hand pick all of congress and its various committees. That situation exists in the SBC and BGCO. Fundamentalism does not tolerate shared leadership.
To give an example of the size of the “mandate”, from which the BGCO operates, consider the following: At the recently completed 1999 BGCO, the one recorded vote that I witnessed was the 683 votes cast on whether to have a secret ballot for the Falls Creek recommendation. There reportedly are about 750,000 Oklahoma Southern Baptists. For the sake of this example, let us assume there were 750 votes cast. This would represent 1/10th of 1% (.01) of Oklahoma Baptists making the decision for 749,250 or 99.99%. To further dilute this already microscopic number, probably at least 50% of these 750 messengers are pastor or staff. (Dr. Leon McBeth, noted church Historian at Southwestern Seminary, reported at a meeting I attended a few years ago that 70% of messengers attending the national convention were paid staff members.)
Before the takeover of the SBC by Fundamentalists, what transpired at the national and state conventions was rarely questioned because of the high level of trust that existed. It was also understood by most people that resolutions passed at these conventions represented the opinions of only the majority of messengers attending that particular convention and in no way was meant to speak for all Baptists. Unfortunately, times have changed and resolutions that are now passed at these conventions are now being interpreted as policy. That these resolutions are now policy is very clearly shown in that at all six seminaries, plus the boards and agencies of the SBC — no one will be employed or serve as a trustee unless they affirm the Fundamentalists position on, among other things, abortion, ordination of women, inerrancy and submission of wives to husbands in marriage. That this is patently creedal is undeniable and flies squarely in the face of academic freedom, priesthood of the believer and local church autonomy.
It should be of great interest to all Baptists that a blue ribbon committee has been selected by Dr. Paige Patterson, President of the SBC, to study further changes in the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM). This committee is chaired by Adrian Rogers and is composed only of Baptists who have been leaders in the Fundamentalist takeover. This committee is to bring recommendations to the SBC in June 2000. Knowing the makeup of this hard-line Fundamentalist committee it is almost assuredly going to recommend further amendments to the BFM in the areas of abortion, ordination of women, inerrancy, and approve of the pastor as a dictator rather than a servant-shepherd.
Interestingly, if the BFM is changed, as is quite likely, it will have absolutely no effect on the infrastructure of the SBC at the national level. They are already operating under these conditions. Why, then, are they recommending these changes? The answer I believe lies in the Fundamentalists desire to tighten the screws on state conventions to whip them in line before more states go the way of Texas and Virginia. These two states have voted to maintain traditional Baptist freedoms and not kowtow to the national SBC. Because Fundamentalists could not get their way in these states, they formed competing state conventions. It is interesting to note that in these states, not one of the individuals or churches that have opted to be a part of the new Fundamentalist conventions were excluded from participating in their Mainstream state conventions. Each one could have continued to relate to the SBC any way they wished within their Mainstream state conventions. But, because they couldn’t control and tell the rest of the state what to do, they decided to leave.
As a final word on this subject, Paige Patterson’s prediction that the SBC will split is probably an indication that he intends to lead the SBC to adopt a hard line BFM and then will encourage state conventions to amend their constitutions to require that their churches to adopt this hard-line BFM. This in effect would purge churches that don’t adopt the new BFM from the SBC. This, I believe, is the overall grand strategy of the Fundamentalist leadership. The Fundamentalists are quite concerned that Texas, which contributes about 15% of the SBC budget, may begin to balk at the way Fundamentalists are spending their money. Because of these concerns the Fundamentalists may feel it is to their advantage to adopt a hard-line BFM, forcing churches with Mainstream leanings out of the SBC before they are able to inform more Baptists about what they are doing.
A preview of things to come can be seen in New Mexico. Fundamentalists controlling the convention in New Mexico are preparing a proposal, to be voted on at next year’s convention, that requires member churches to affirm the BFM amendment requiring wives to submit to their husbands in order to have messengers seated at the convention.
If Adrian Roger’s blue ribbon committee leads the SBC to emulate New Mexico, then every Baptist church in the SBC — in the very near future — will likely have to certify the revised BFM or their messengers will no longer be seated. In effect, Mainstream churches will be kicked out of the SBC and Fundamentalist dominated state conventions.
Because of the strong probability that every SBC church in Oklahoma will be asked to affirm the creedalistic BFM or be forced out of the BGCO, it would seem apparent that it is of the utmost importance for every church to review their Baptist history so they will be in a position to make an intelligent decision when required to do so.
WHAT DO WE DO?
THE ELEPHANT IN THE KITCHEN
SYNDROME
The elephant in the kitchen syndrome is a affliction in which people don’t want to discuss the obvious. “Elephant? What elephant?” they say as they dance around an issue. This is what has been happening SBC churches for the past 20 years. Drastic changes have occurred and yet many, if not most, Baptists say, “Changes? What changes?” Those in the fray, both Fundamentalists and Mainstreamers agree that far-reaching changes have occurred, they just don’t agree on the result.
We think that if most Baptists gave consideration to the changes that have been made they would not approve of them. As they become informed about them, it is our hope who come to share our concern will assist us in informing other Baptists.
HOW TO INFORM
The changes that have occurred in the SBC cannot be understood without some grasp of Baptist history. Both Fundamentalists and Mainstream Baptists claim their positions are based on historic Baptist principals. Both cannot be right; therefore, to get to the truth of the matter, Baptist history must be examined.
If Baptist history is to be reviewed with congregations or individuals it must be honest and accurate. Mainstream Baptists have nothing to fear from an honest and accurate review of Baptist history and Baptist doctrine. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have much to lose. That is why they are revising the BFM.
We encourage you to face the issues head on, whether you are laity or professional staff. Although admittedly having a strong opinion about the results of the takeover, what I say or write should be of little importance to your opinion on the takeover. Similarly, I would suggest the same thing about your pastor. Although you should trust what your pastor says, the changes that have occurred in the SBC and BGCO are of such nature that deeper exploration of the causes behind the takeover should be explored. As President Reagan told Premier Gorbachev, “Trust but verify”. We encourage you to do the same.
REASONS FOR NOT INFORMING
Some responsibility for the lack of information lies with the laity, but by far the larger responsibility is with the pastor. The following are some definitions of types of pastors and why they don’t inform their congregations of the takeover.
Dictatorial Pastor. This type pastor almost totally controls what is presented to the church. He keeps his church uninformed and under his control. By nature most members trust their pastor and if told something is true, they tend to believe without checking it out. Dictatorial pastors tend toward Fundamentalism, most Mainstream pastors are inclined to keep their congregation informed. A dictatorial pastor will only tell his congregation what he wants them to know.
Intimidated Pastor. A pastor in this position does not inform because he is afraid by doing so he will incur the wrath of denominational leadership, thereby decreasing his chances of advancing in the Convention. Those of us who have been involved with the Mainstream organization know this intimidation is real and widespread. By informing his church the intimidated pastor fears he will indicate that he is out of step with powers that be. Therefore, he does not inform and his congregation stays in the dark.
Uncertain Pastor. According to recent surveys the average term of a SBC pastor is 3-1/2 years. If this is true it stands to reason that if the controversy is not mentioned either while the pastor is being interviewed or after being called, he is most reticent to bring it up and this is understandable.
Although the leadership of our state convention claims the vast majority of Oklahoma Baptists are on the same page as Fundamentalists, my travels across the state dispute this. Probably 90-95% are not on anyone’s page. They can’t be because they have never had an opportunity to be informed about denominational change. I submit that without this information it is impossible to know where one stands. Obviously this 90-95% of uninformed Baptists represent churches that are pastored by all 3 categories of pastors just described. However, only those pastors in category 2 and 3 are likely to be open to informing their congregation if a compelling reason shows that they should.
REASONS FOR INFORMING
Right to Know If the priesthood of every believer and local church autonomy are accepted, then how in the world can an individual Baptist make a reasoned decision when they are not informed?
Those of us who have become informed, both Mainstream Baptists and Fundamentalists, have made our decision. However, neither side has the right to make that decision for others. Every Baptist has a right to know and every pastor has a responsibility to inform. Unfortunately, the dictatorial pastor is not going to give his church an opportunity to be informed but we have hope that the intimidated and uncertain pastors will begin to carry out their responsibility to inform.
Uninformed Church An uninformed church has no base for understanding and enters the new millenium with a confused understanding of denominational relations. If you have a dictatorial pastor at your helm, your church will go the direction he tells it to go. If you have an intimidated or uncertain pastor your church will probably have no direction and will follow the Fundamentalists by default.
What happens to a congregation when the pastor moves on and you are uninformed? The church has little idea of where the majority in the congregation stands because you have no information base upon which to draw. Activists from both sides of the controversy will say their side is the majority viewpoint. I personally know of churches in Oklahoma that are having great difficulty agreeing on a pastor because no one can speak with authority where their church stands. I have had Fundamentalist pastors tell me quite frankly that they haven’t informed their church because he, the pastor, knew what was best for them. Do you agree with that statement? I hope not!
The most common excuse for not informing the church is that it will be divisive and cause a split in the church. This, to me, is a terrible argument. Are we afraid to trust our congregation with factual data? I have always believed an informed individual is a much more productive citizen than an uninformed one. Would this not hold true for Baptists as well? If we inform our congregation about controversial matters, is everyone going to agree? Absolutely not! However, this is not division but diversity.
Baptists used to be known as the denomination that found unity within diversity. Until the Fundamentalists came in and set a creedalistic standard, we could all agree to disagree on some issues and still could work and worship together in harmony. Now if a church is uninformed they are operating under what might be called an “uninformed unity”. An “uninformed unity” is an oxymoron if there ever was one. This type of unity has absolutely no base.
On the other hand, an informed church operates from what might be called an “informed diversity”. This, in fact, was the operating standard of Southern Baptists until Fundamentalism reared its ugly head and decided that diversity was evil.
Some will disagree with me, but I firmly believe the only way to avoid an inevitably serious split in a congregation is to inform. By giving a congregation the opportunity to be informed and discuss issues, you are sure to have some sharp discussions. But, in the end, members will have had their say and although some will disagree with the majority viewpoint, democracy will have been practiced. The other way is dictatorship.
SUGGESTIONS
The Mainstream organization stands ready to assist any church, Sunday school class, or individuals who are interested in becoming informed. We realize that this will be greeted in some quarters with cynicism. However, our goal is to give a fair and accurate presentation and, to attain that goal, we would be glad to work with anyone to assure that end.
Appoint a Denominational Relationship Committee . Elect a committee that will be fair and will represent a cross section of the church. This committee must be seen as one in which the church has full confidence and trust. They will be expected to review denominational events and report back to the church from time to time. This committee should be furnished literature to study that represents an accurate review of Baptist history and literature from both sides of the controversy that is dividing the SBC and BGCO. By letting this committee do the “grunt” work of informing the church, the pastor avoids being criticized with either not informing his church or if he does inform, perhaps being dictatorial in his method of informing. The DRC should be an active and ongoing committee that should give regular reports to the church on denominational events.
Conduct a ±4 week study session on Baptist History and Baptist Distinctives. Of course, the time and length of these sessions would be up to each individual church or organization. For instance, the church of which I am a member had sessions on Sunday evenings before worship service. Another church had a 4 week session for adult Sunday school departments that were convened during the regular Sunday school hour. I personally like the latter plan better and in fact would encourage the sessions be extended to other departments. Our laity at all levels, particularly those under 50, are woefully uninformed on Baptist History.
Some churches will have people who can lead these study sessions. For those who believe they need some assistance, Mainstream Baptists will gladly work with you in preparing a curriculum to conduct these studies.
It is also understandable that some of the pastors reading this report are going to be skeptical about what might be covered in these sessions. We will be glad to sit down with you and discuss what should be covered so that you will be completely comfortable before asking your church to conduct these studies. I might also add it is very important that the members of the Denominational Relations Committee also attend these sessions
Following the last of these study sessions it is recommended that at least one and probably two open meetings be held so that the entire church might be given the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the issues. Finally, it is also recommended that a speaker or leader from both the Mainstream and the Fundamentalist camp be separately invited to present the issues from their perspective and respond to questions from the congregation.
Conduct a Professional Survey. This last part of our recommendation is a vital element in the whole education process. The survey will indicate where the majority of church members stand on the issues about which they have been informed.
Let me give you an example of how this educational process worked in the church of which I am a member. Approximately 10 years ago we followed the process described above. At the conclusion of the initial education program we utilized the services of a member of our congregation who teaches at the University of Oklahoma and is an expert in, among other things, how to conduct a professional random survey. It was our desire to get a “read” on our congregation after our studies. We deemed it important enough to get professional help in designing our questions because we didn’t want the questions to be “slanted” one way or the other. (Click here to see a copy of this survery) Our church set four basic criteria and then let our professional pollster do the survey. Our four basic criteria were that the persons answering the survey: (1) must be at least 18 (2) must be regular giver to church [Did not require tithing.] (3) must attend church or Sunday school an average of two times per month and (4) no more than one member per family would be polled.
Although there are many who are skeptical of random surveys, I feel confident that the one conducted in our church has proven to be quite accurate. Just as an example, at the time our survey was run 53% of our membership were female. Fifty-three percent of the people polled were women. The age groups that were polled also fit our demographics quite accurately. In the subsequent years votes that have been taken on controversial issues have quite closely followed what could be expected based on the survey. It should be noted here that we continue the actual educational process in our church through an active Denominational Relations Committee.
As important as all of the above have been during the past 10 years, perhaps its most important use came when it was time to call a new pastor. When our pastor retired after 29 years of service, those of us on the search committee knew it would be difficult to replace someone so revered by our church and the community. In order to get as much help as possible, our committee conducted a random survey of our church as to what they believe were important qualifications in the pastor for whom we were searching. Again we called on our resident pollster to assist in this endeavor. (Click here to see a copy of this survey)
In addition to the random survey of our entire congregation, we requested that each deacon in our church answer the same questions. By doing this we were able to compare a random survey of the congregation against a survey of the entire deacon body. We were quite pleased to find that the results from the two groups were statistically even. With these surveys to rely on, we knew where our church stood on the qualities we were looking for in our new pastor.
Those surveys were a big asset in our pastor search. Whenever someone questioned me on where our church stood on certain issues (and I was questioned), I had the surveys that indicated where the majority stood. In the absence of such surveys all I could have expressed was my opinion against another’s.
Another benefit of the surveys was that our new pastor had a current photograph of where our church stood on issues. This, I would think, would be of enormous value to any new pastor.
In closing, it is my belief the preceding outline for how to inform one’s church offers most compelling reasons for doing so. This should not be considered either a Mainstream or Fundamentalist issue. If fairness guidelines are followed, divisiveness will not occur. Diversity YES, divisiveness NO. Baptists, until the last 20 years, have always been able to handle diversity yet cooperate together.
Mainstream does not have the power, and wouldn’t use it if we had it, to force any pastor or lay person to pursue what we have suggested. We thought it timely to share our feelings with you and to reaffirm that representatives of Mainstream will be glad to sit down with staff or laity and discuss your particular situation.
The giant cloud of controversy that has covered the SBC the past 20 years is still just as big. Although many individuals and churches claim to have not been affected by this cloud, all already have. Your literature reflects the Fundamentalist dogma. Your future pastors in SBC seminaries are being indoctrinated rather than educated by professors forced to teach creedal theology. Many churches are finding out first hand that they thought they agreed with the changes until they employed a truly dictatorial pastor. The “new order” of Fundamentalism teaches that pastors are to be the “rulers” of the church.
It is my belief the next 5 years will be definative in Baptist life. It is likely that every Baptist church will be required by SBC leadership, through changes in the BFM, to become Fundamentalist or be forced out of the SBC. That is why we strongly recommend that each church educate their congregation so that when the time comes, a more educated decision can be made. Dr. Patterson was quoted recently as saying, “A split between the two groups probably should happen since there are great differences in their theology.” Before having to make that decision you should be sure which theology fits your church
For more information contact Dr. Bruce Prescott at (405) 329-2266 or Bob Stephenson at (405) 235-9964.