A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE:
The Difference In A Nutshell
By David R. Currie,
Coordinator

I was heartbroken in the fall of 1975 when I entered Southwestern Seminary to start my M/Div. I wanted to study Ethics with Dr. Bill Pinson. Dr. Pinson had accepted the call to pastor First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls. He was going to teach a few courses that fall and I took an ethics elective so I could have him for one course.

Then Bob Adams came to teach ethics. I made a friend and mentor for life. I cannot think of anyone more Christian, more caring, or who lives out of and demonstrates the Grace of God more than Bob Adams.

After going to the mission field in South America, and returning to teach ethics by presidential appointment at Southwestern, his contract has not been renewed. He and his wife have both been hired to teach at the new seminary at Gardner-Webb, in North Carolina. They will be fine.

But as the famous radio commentator says, let me tell you the rest of the story.

In 1977 Bob signed a statement (along with Foy Valentine and two other Southern Baptists) calling “for more public debate on the (abortion) issue.” To me, the statement, “A Call to Concern” is not a radical pro-choice document by any stretch, but rather a call for a measured, looking-at-all-sides approach to a very difficult ethical issue.

In the fall of 1994, Dr. Adams was scheduled to speak in chapel at Southwestern. He ended up canceling due to a family health situation.

But prior to his canceling, the following fax regarding Dr. Adams was sent to Southwestern President Ken Hemphill by trustee Laura Lee Cogswell of Sherman, Texas. We will reprint it in its entirety.

Dear Dr. Hemphill:

I apologize for the lateness of this hour, but “the hour is indeed late.” I hope this chapel service can be voided and filled with someone “real.” This wolf should not be assisted with his sheep’s clothing by the seminary’s stamp of approval —speaking in chapel. The real message his preaching will send is “it’s o.k. to hold ‘small’ differences of opinion — he can still preach the Gospel.” I fear God won’t bless this.

Ken, I do defer to your discretion in this matter, and I’ll surely be praying for you. I realize this is extremely difficult, but the stronger your stand, the more strength God will give you.

My friends, this fax contains the SBC controversy in a nutshell. The real difference of opinion between fundamentalist and traditional, moderate, (you pick your label) Baptists is right there for all to read.

For me as a traditional Baptist, not only are “small differences of opinion” to be allowed, they are normal, healthy, and to be expected. As long as you confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and that He died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is coming again, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Ethical issues, as important as they are, should not destroy our fellowship and cooperation in worldwide evangelism and missions.

As far as I am concerned, your view on abortion, capital punishment, affirmative action, school vouchers, prayer in public schools, women in ministry, the lottery, the “Contract with America” and on and on are things we should be able to care deeply about, sometimes disagree on, and yet remain brothers and sisters in Christ.

For the fundamentalist, “small differences of opinion” are crucial. In fact, they matter enough to destroy fellowship and exclude from participation those who disagree. Case in point: Southern Seminary right now. This historic institution is being torn apart over “small differences of opinion” being enforced in a creedal manner. (See numerous articles in this newsletter.)

I am reminded of a phone conservation I had with a fundamentalist. Anytime I said I had a difference of opinion with him about an issue (we were discussing social issues), his response was “You don’t believe the Bible.” I tried to explain I did believe the Bible, I just interpreted it differently on these issues, but he would hear none of it. He concluded the conversation by saying, and I quote, “I do not care if there are but 1,000 churches left in the SBC when we get finished, as long as they are pure.”

As an ethicist, I believe every Christian should have an opinion on the social, political, economic, and moral issues of our day that is based on one’s interpretation of the Scriptures, which are our final authority in matters of faith and practice. As a Baptist, I do not believe all our opinions on such issues must be identical, nor that our disagreements should destroy our fellowship or our cooperation in the world missions enterprise. We should respect each others interpretations.

As I see it in a nutshell, for the fundamentalist, Jesus is not enough. Small differences of opinion are fundamental and should not be tolerated. We must agree on all of the details. If we disagree, somebody does not believe the Bible. A “group from the right” is attempting to force upon us a creedal faith, and that is the cause of the division in the SBC. The problem is the attempt to enforce the creed!

For me as a Baptist, Jesus is what it is all about. Everything else is subject to the priesthood of each believer and soul competency. If you confess Jesus, then as far as I am concerned, you can vote how you choose, worship as you choose, and ordain who you choose, and you are still my friend in Christ as long as you do not try and tell me I have to believe and practice the same way.

I am happy to discuss our differences because such discussion should challenge us both to think and explore the Scriptures to confirm or change our positions. Our disagreements should not divide us.

I am willing to cooperate in world missions, theological education (with the emphasis on various interpretations and encouraging students to study the Scriptures and think for themselves), and benevolent ministries with people who disagree with me. What matters most is that Jesus is Lord.

And that is the controversy in a nutshell!

June/July 1995