6 Degrees of Separation
What makes a liberal…or moderate…or conservative….or a fundamentalist? In other words, what qualifies them as such? In the Southern Baptist blog world I think many of us have long forgotten the reality that we are much closer than we think, theologically. I thought it would be good to state why I think that is so.
As we start, it would be helpful to try and loosely define some characteristics that some might associate with the varying degrees of theological dispositions. I need to state that there will most certainly be differences of opinion about some of these areas but I am attempting to use issues that are commonly accepted as tenets of that portion of theology.
Let’s start with liberal. One could argue that the liberal position, the far left position, within Christianity is almost never seen within SBC life. Typical components within this realm would include the denial of the innerancy of scripture, the denial of many, if not all, of the miracles (i.e. virgin birth, walking on water, etc.), the acceptance of social behaviors such as homosexuality and the inclusion of moral positions such as abortion on demand as acceptable options. The theological liberal will often even deny the deity of Christ and occasionally even the existence of God. While the “liberal” corner of the theological universe is much more diverse than these simple points, it is true that these often can define a theological liberal.
The moderate would be next. While the moderate will almost always accept the existence of God and the deity of Christ, they would also often deny the use of the term innerancy in reference to scripture. They would maintain its value and its truthfulness, but they often will not support its infallibility. The theological moderate often places themselves in the camp which choose to see less of a distinction between the roles of males and females and would often voice displeasure about issues like homosexuality and abortion while still seeing valid reasons for the acceptance of said behaviors.
The conservative is the next choice. Conservative’s will (90% of the time) affirm the innerancy and authority of scripture. They read the bible through very literal lenses. The conservative often chooses to take the difficult road, regardless of social ramifications, because of their belief in the veracity of scripture. The conservative will place equal value on males and females and yet see genuine, distinct differences in the roles that they fill within culture, family and the church.
Finally we come to the fundamentalist. This branch of Christian theology interprets the bible through literal lenses essentially all of the time. They see a great distinction between christianity and culture and often try to separate themselves not only in ideology but in dress, appearance, behavior, and so on. The fundamentalist sees life in black and white and gets very frustrated when some try to inject grey into their theology. The fundamentalist often highly values tradition and sees a great level of difference between the male and female species and wishes not to blur the lines of distinction between the two.
I’ve included a diagram here that helps to visually portray the four levels of theological differentiation that exist within most Christian cultures. It is important, as we disagree over methodology, that we recognize that 95% of everyone in this disagreement falls into the category of someone on the right hand side of that dividing line. We have distinctions, they are real and they may often be many. However, make no mistake, this is not a “fight” between liberals, moderates, conservatives and fundamentalists. This is a disagreement over methodology between varying degrees of conservative Southern Baptists.
I often waver between laughter and astonishment as I read the various blogs that throw around labels like “liberal” and “moderate” when referring to various members of one side or the other of this disagreement. Those are asinine, not to mention uneducated, statements. When the rest of the theological wold, or the secular world for that matter, looks at us and our squabbles, there is never any concern for whether this is a liberal, moderate or conservative fight. No, they consistently recognize that we are united as conservative, Bible believing Southern Baptists, who simply disagree on the application of portions of that scripture. Even those differences of application, I might add, end up on the conservative side of the fulcrum 90% of the time.
I do not care if you are Paige Patterson, Wade Burleson, Marty Duren, Al Mohler, Art Rogers, Ben Cole, Frank Page or Jerry Rankin, all of these men, and the rest of SBC leadership by their own admission falls into the category of someone on the right hand side of this diagram.
It is time that we stopped acting like children who prefer ad hominem attacks when in a disagreement because they are simple, easy to use and brilliant when it comes to blurring the issues and avoiding genuine, Christ-like dialogue. It is beyond time that we stop “throwing down the gauntlet” and start dealing with the issues, from a biblical perspective. Let us agree that some of us need to drop the faulty character attacks and others of us need to stop hiding behind our “ivory towers” and sit down together and address these issues. The Southern Baptist Convention will not succeed if either of these sides “win”. No, our only hope is unity in spite of diversity. The hope of the gospel resides in our ability to lay down our own preferences and prefer the unity of the church, the primacy of the gospel and the vast need of the world over anything else. That, my friends, is a separation worth coming together for.
**DISCLAIMER** This post includes highly subjective material. Please understand that these comments are not intended to be taken as authoritative, but rather should be viewed as descriptive with the recognized understanding that there is room for correction.
Howdy! My name is Micah Fries and I am a husband, daddy and pastor who loves to discuss life, theology, culture and variety of other issues.
13 responses to "6 Degrees of Separation"
Well, I’m impressed. Micah, you said it. Beautiful.
I was around when the conservative movement started, and when it “won.” I was in the same association as some of the stars of the moderates were driven from leadership, and my attitude was “too bad.” I viewed them as liberals, not worthy of the positions to which they had been called. When I met a young man discipled by one of these pastors, I looked down upon them. What a jerk I was.
Then one day a man sat down with me over lunch, and we started talking about the labels being thrown about. Conservative, fundamentalist, liberal, moderate. Then he drew a line on a napkin, and in the center of that line, he drew a perpendicular line. He said, “this is the middle, where most SBC pastors are. Move a millimeter to the left, and you have a moderate, or liberal. Move a millimeter or two to the right, and you have a conservative, or a fundamentalist.” I was shocked, and dismayed at my own idiocy. Even at the height of the division, we were no more than two to four millimeters apart. Today, Southern Baptists are even closer than that.
Here is the problem with that line, and with the six degrees that you describe. You can’t put it on a line, because it is so subjective. A moderate, or liberal, is anyone even a little to the left of me, if I am a conservative. To Phelps and the Westboro folks, I am a flaming liberal. To my friends at my church, I am probably conservative. It is relative. The definition of a liberal is anyone who is less conservative than you. That is the problem with some of these dorks in the blogosphere, Jeremy being the chief dork. He just doesn’t get it. He and others like him are trying to move that line right of center, more and more. And how does he and others like him move that line? By attaching labels to decent people, calling them liberals or moderates. If they only knew the damage they are doing by labeling these people! Not so much to the lost world, but to the careers and ministries of the men they are labeling. Let’s say that your name shows up in front of a pulp!
it committee for a really good church. Not that you’d ever leave your current job :>) , your last post notwithstanding, but just as an example. This church pays a nice salary, has a full staff, and great benefits. It is perfect, and you sense in your spirit that God could bless you there. You want to go. As the pulpit committee does their due diligence, they hear someone say that you are a liberal. That’s it. Game over. They will not consider your name any further, because some yahoo in the blog world decided to arbitrarily label you.
Or turn the situation around. A more moderate church gets your name, and hears that you are a liberal, when you’re really not. You get there, and people realize that you’re not what they thought you were.
This labeling can ruin a career and a ministry. And its all over less than four millimeters.
It is one reason why I left the SBC. In the UMC, we know we have liberals. Flaming ones. Ones who deny the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, who embrace homosexuality and universalism. But much of the UMC is conservative. And we don’t sweat it. We just work together to reach the world for Christ.
You know this, but I’ll say it anyway. All this liberal/fundamentalist crap is just a diversion, while the world goes untold about the good news. But don’t worry, Southern Baptists, we’ll tell them about it, while you just go on fighting over four millimeters.
With few exceptions, I tend to agree with your definitions. That makes for some interesting observations, when applied.
First of all, using the definitions you have put forward here, the conclusion can easily be drawn that the number of genuine “liberals” who ever existed within the ranks of the SBC at any time was an extremely small number, if there were any at all. Certainly they were never in any kind of position to cause the denomination, or its seminaries, to move to the left, down that “slippery slope.”
Most of those who were labelled as “liberal” in the SBC would actually fall within the definition of a “moderate,” particularly related to their insistence on limiting description of the scripture to the words and concepts its writers used to describe it instead of drawing what they consider to be human conclusions and definitions, i.e. “inerrant” and “infallible.” The other distinguishing characteristic of these “moderates” was their willingness to extend the parameters of Baptist cooperation and full participation to churches which didn’t necessarily fit the traditional social mold of the deep South “Baabdist” culture, including churches that did not object to women in leadership or in the pulpit.
The group that has largely left the SBC, or moved to its fringes, since the 1979 Conservative Resurgence, actually fit the definition of Conservative, at least with regard to their theology and practice, than they do the term “moderate,” at least those I’ve encountered do. Many of them are in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They express belief in the infallibility of the Bible, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, his divine nature, etc., etc. I’ve done a lot of reading, listening and observing since 1979, and other than the fact that these people also advocated broader parameters of cooperation in Baptist missions and ministry. Although these folks do not deny cooperation with churches that call women to the ministry without exclusion, most of them do not ordain or call women to the pastorate themselves. CBF has gently but firmly declined cooperation with those who advocate homosexual clergy or abortion rights.
About the only difference I can observe between those “moderates” and the blogging group led by Wade Burleson is that their theological issues are different. Perhaps that’s what has made it so easy for the power base in the SBC to bring out those old labels “moderate,” “closet moderate” and “liberal” and use them again, since it worked so well the last time.
Gentleman, good points from both of you.
I also want to point out, as has been alluded to, that my observations are subjective and therefore are subject to challenge. I simply wanted to help point out that the argument that some of us one side of this methodological “divide” in SBC life are “moderates” or otherwise is ridiculous. We are conservative, and glad of it, and to say otherwise is to unfortunately miss in attempts at accuracy.
You know … if we’re playing some sport, we have no trouble with definitions. There’s some outside body that determines what they are. Same’s sort of true for languages. We have dictionaries.
Unfortunately we have no outside body to carve the definitions of liberal, conservative, etc into stone. So we’re all free to make our own, and then to misinterpret everybody else’s use of those same terms.
But I think, in matters of faith, that’s the way it ought to be. I think God wants us to say what we mean, without the “shortcuts” of nicknames or handles.
There’s one teacher in our SS that always says “religion will send you to hell”. I always trot out the slip of paper in my wallet and read what Wesbster says it is, which of course won’t send you to hell. He then argues “You know what I mean”. To which I respond “So SAY what you mean”.
The “nicknames” are fine as long as we realize that’s all they are.
And your definitions are fine. Except of course, liberals always disagree with everything conservatives say, so don’t expect to bat 1000.
Micah
Good post. I might add that I waver between laughter and astonishment when I hear people being labeled as “spooky fundamentalist/junior pastor” or actions from a body of trustees/President of a seminary being called a “lynching.”
Allow me to quote you, “Those are asinine, not to mention uneducated, statements.”
I do appreciate your spirit in this post. My previous comments were not ment to be a harsh reaction to you. I would also like all the rhetoric to stop. But, I must add that it goes both ways.
The world looks at us and does not see a hill of beans difference in what or who we are. But I will add, when they see us tear each other apart, they see no difference from themselves.
God Bless
Subject to challenge and to change.
at least I’ve found my subjective views are such.
Ok, Micah, the drawing is way too complicated for me, but I think your defintions for your general categories are good. Living where I do, when I say that I pastor a Baptist church, I always have to add, “but we’re a little different type of Baptist.” I say that because we’re the only cell-group, contemporary worship, elder-led, reformed-charismatic, Baptist church in about a 50 mile radius. So, when I say I’m conservative, most of the conservatives in our area aren’t really sure what I mean. I don’t know how to avoid labels, but they are inherently divisive.
Cyle-
I intentionally left out methodology from the equation. Unfortunately there are too many who judge theological acumen and application based on the appearance of the church and it’s pastor. The idea that appearance dictates theology would lead one to believe that Bill Clinton is an upstanding fundamentalist and that Jesus and His long hair and tradition bashing ways must have been a flaming left-wing wack job.
Labels are unavoidable, and not always out of place, but should never be used as fodder for the separation of believers. That needs to stop.
You said: “This is a disagreement over methodology between varying degrees of conservative Southern Baptists.”
If this is true, why are we discussing doctrinal issues such as PPL? Why are letters being shown by open and admitted Charasmatics asking us to not deal with these issues? I see no one discussing methodology! This is all about Doctrine!
Tim-
In my opinion you are incorrect. This is entirely about methodology. This is not a question of whether PPL is valid, or not. No one is being asked to believe in PPL. If they were, than this might be about doctrine. I do not practice a PPL nor do I personally believe in the existence of a PPL. I do, however, believe strongly that scripture is not clear in this area and so I choose to show charity towards my SBC brethren who hold to this position.
No, this is not about doctrine. Rather this is about having the freedom to believe in a doctrine that is not clear biblically without being removed from the fellowship. This has everything to do with the application of our theology (i.e. methodology).
Micah, you are so right, its scary.
This is not about doctrine. It is about a KGB-like police-state who would invade your prayer closet to make sure that you doing everything correctly, NOT according to the Bible, but to the BFM, which seems to be taking a front seat to the Bible in these peoples’ minds.
Micah,
I know it is about methodology. What doctrine is so heretical that we can’t get along. The SBC’ers left all believe the Bible is inerrant. Why can’t we have differences?
Most of those in the SBC prior to the conservative resurgence, probably 99.9 percent of them, believed in inerrancy, too. For some reason, that is not enough to satisfy those now in control of the SBC. It’s inerrancy plus something else. And if those on the outside managed to figure out what the something else was, and determined to agree with it, something else would take its place.
Which means, it is definitely about methodology.
Leave a comment