Theological Inventions of Fundamentalism
By Vester Wolber

Vester Wolber received his B. A. from Ouachita Baptist University, his Th.M. and Th.D. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was Professor of Biblical Studies at Ouachita for more than a quarter of a century, and lives in retirement in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The theological spin now being offered by Southern Baptist spokesmen is not based on conservative interpretation of Scripture, but is a product of the creative, inventive theology inherent in fundamentalism. By referring to this new spin as creative and inventive theology I mean that it is man-made and innovative. It reflects a less than conservative series of interpretations, which have given rise to flawed theology.

Conservative interpreters of Scripture seek first to discover and understand what the Bible teaches, then fashion their theology from their findings; but the hermeneutical principle underlying this net-fundamentalism encourages its pupils first to develop rigid conclusions before beginning the study of Scripture, which conclusions are then brought with them into their study of the Bible.

1. It was not conservative exegesis of New Testament Scriptures, but innovative theology that enticed the Convention to revise its first article of faith in the Baptist Faith and Message so as to state that the Bible is the revelation of God. The opening prologue to John’s Gospel says that the eternal and divine Word became flesh, i. e., came to be the man Jesus of Nazareth, and made God known—revealed him.
   
   These eighteen verses tell us that a divine agent reveals the divine nature of God and that agent is from within the Godhead, not separate and apart from God. To say that the Bible is the revelation of God is to imply, if not declare, that the Bible is divine. The fallacy of this claim is that the Scriptures do not say and do not infer that the Bible is the revelation of God. One is edging dangerously close to a form of idolatry when saying that this Book is the revelation of our Lord. Bibliolatry violates the second law which forbids the employment of any graven image, any human artifact, in our approach to our Maker. Jesus said that God is spirit and those who would worship him must do so in spirit.
   
   The Bible is the primary pipeline through which the message of God’s self-disclosure is conveyed to us, and to say that the Bible is that revelation is to confuse the agent of transmission with the message being conveyed.
   
   The amazing paradox of Baptist history in the making is that those who would all but deify the Bible advocate an item of theology, which is not taught in the Bible. At no point in the inspired Book is it said or implied that the Bible is God’s revelation of himself.
   
   My claim through the years has been that I am too conservative to be a fundamentalist, and now these neo-fundamentalists have confirmed my claim by devising an item of theology, which is not taught in the Bible.
   
   Mark’s Gospel, in paraphrasing a passage from Isaiah, wrote that men such as these are “teaching as doctrine the precepts of man” (Mark 7: 7). The Bible is not a sacred object to be adored and praised; it is a practical guidebook whose teachings are to be studied and obeyed. It is not a self-conscious book which ever calls attention to itself, but is an awesome index finger pointing away from itself toward God in Christ, telling us to hear him, believe him, trust him, obey him. It is a book of praise, but its praise is not for itself but for the Lord God. It is an inspired workbook, which enables us to gain experience in the two supreme achievements: walking humbly before God, and walking uprightly among our peers. The Bible is a cookbook, which invites us to “taste and see that the Lord is good,” and the essential difference between the Bible and the Lord is the difference between a cookbook and a Dutch apple pie.
   
   Conclusion: Saying that the Bible is the revelation of God is to assign it a place alongside of Christ and attempt to expand the Trinity into a foursome, three of them personal and spiritual, the fourth a Book.

2. It is not conservative Baptist theology to make the Baptist Faith and Message, amended version, the criterion by which it is determined whether or not proven servants of God are qualified to continue serving in world missions. Is not this latest ruling the equivalent of ruling that the revised document is fully inspired and infallible?
   
   Although the Bible is not an idol to be worshiped and bowed down to, it is the only creed, which Baptists have been willing to follow, and as of this date there is no crying need for a condensed creed, especially not for one with flawed theology.
   
   Conclusion: Let others recite the ancient Apostles’ Creed if they so desire; Baptists must continue to “search the Scriptures,” because we have found in them the way to walk humbly before God and uprightly among men
   
   
3. It is not in line with conservative polity, nor with Baptist heritage, for the Convention to assume and assert authority over churches. This new trend is turning Baptist tradition on its head. Baptists, and especially Southern Baptists, have been quite consistent in adhering to the basic tenet that all ecclesiastical authority inheres in local congregations, and have insisted that all such authority flows upward from the churches, not downward from denominational officers.
   
   Paul, Peter, John and other New Testament authors wrote letters to individuals, to churches, and to groups of churches in a given area; but none of them wrote letters to any ecclesiastical officials with authority over churches.
   
   Conclusion: Baptists don’t like to be driven, but will follow shepherds who lead them in paths of righteousness and do not seek to be lords over God’s heritage. The role model for Baptist ministers must ever be the shepherd servant, not an Egyptian taskmaster.
   
   
4. The new spin that the pastor is to exercise authority over their churches is inconsistent with New Testament teaching and with historic Baptist polity. Both the Bible and history tell us that all ecclesiastical authority resides in local congregations, and inside a given church authority rests on the entire membership. The pastor has no authority over the membership other than that which (a) he has earned, (b) the congregation has assigned to him, and (c) he continues to exercise as a shepherd servant. All this is gathered up in the two titles assigned to him since New Testament days. As pastor he is to shepherd the flock, and as minister he is to serve it.
   
   Conclusion: The genius of our Baptist way of life is that from the beginning it has been a layman’s movement of pure democracy in which ultimate responsibility for success or failure of the church rests on the men, women, and young persons who comprise its membership. In established churches of Europe, the state supports the church financially, and the people have little responsibility. In authoritative churches (denominations) of America, ministers serve at the will of ecclesiastical authorities, and the people are not overly loaded with responsibility. But a Baptist church is financed by its members, and the pastor serves subject to the will of the local body. It is this load of responsibility that has made our laity strong.
   
   
5. Finally, the new article of faith and those who designed it call for a rigid application of Paul’s counsel for wives, while ignoring or circumventing other declarations regarding the role of women. Paul’s lengthy discussions of the role of women in the home, at church, and in society are found in chapters 7, 11, and 14 of First Corinthians; and in Ephesians 5.
   
   These passages contain three definitive items of practical theology: (a) In the home a wife was to be submissive to her husband, as unto the Lord; (b) in church worship women were to be mute; and (c) in society at large she was not to shorten her hair. This latest article of faith adopted by Southern Baptists mandates a literal interpretation and a rigid application of this first item of practical theology, but those who advocate it do not make any such application of Paul’s teachings regarding the role of women at church or in society.
   
   Conservative hermeneutics would have us seek answers to three questions: What did Paul mean by these expressions? Why did he express them? How should we apply them?
   1. Paul meant what he wrote, that a wife should be submissive to her husband, all women should remain mute in public worship, and they should not cut their hair.
   2. His purpose in proposing these regulations was to see that churches conduct public services in full compliance with social and cultural patterns then extant so as not to be offensive to outsiders. Just as the apostle to Gentiles insisted in Romans 13 that Christians live in full compliance with Roman law, so also did he desire that his people conduct themselves in compliance with cultural patterns then in vogue.
   3. How then should we apply his directives in twenty-first century America? The answer: consistently, and with due caution; not willy-nilly. In essence, the added-on article of faith and those who are pushing it are saying to our people: you must obey Paul’s counsel that wives be in subjection to their husbands, but you may disregard his mandate that women keep quiet in church. They are also saying that a wife must be fully submissive to her husband just as the text says, but there is no need for women to obey Paul’s injunction against trimming their hair. Their silence on this issue is a tack admission that the advocates of a throwback culture lost their battle against bobbed hair early last century.
      
      Thus far, modern women have won their first conflict with fundamentalism, and decades have passed since anyone has raised the old issue of shorthaired women. Slowly but steadily, women are gaining the right to be heard at church, on the mission fields, and in various walks of life.
      
      Regarding authority in family life that has never been a problem when both husband and wife are mature Christians: They establish a division of authority that works beautifully. It is interesting to note, however, that among the immature, ignorant, uncouth and ungodly it is not uncommon to see husbands who dominate, even brutalize their wives.
      
      As of this date, there is no crying need in America for an increased number of men who dominate their wives.

September 2002