The Takeover Resurgence is Creedalism
Jimmy R. Allen,
President of the Southern Baptist Convention (1978-1979)

It is in the nature of takeover movements to work intensely at a goal using whatever tactics they choose, assume their takeover process by eliminating opposition, and then seek to rewrite history to bring into focus the noble cause they have served and how they have saved the day. We are in that final phase in Southern Baptist Convention life. The Conference recently held at Southern Seminary about the “Conservative Resurgence” is a case in point.

Press reports reflect how we have been saved from the liberalism of those who do not believe the Bible. The view expressed is that the idea of soul freedom comes from liberals who have been affected by the Enlightenment philosophy of the first half of the century.

However, the Baptist insight of Soul Freedom and individual responsibility for seeking the mind of God and obeying His commands was not born in Enlightenment philosophy. It was born in the Book of Genesis when the Bible records the word from God that He would not force faith from humankind. God is the author of soul freedom.

Contrary to these claims, the takeover issue was never whether Baptists believed the Bible. The issue is and has always been Creedalism and Fundamentalism. Baptists have always been basically conservative, believing the Bible to be true, trustworthy, and authoritative. There have been individuals who deviated from that mindset but they did not last long among us. They went on to other movements in the Christian family. The takeover movement exaggerated that fact. It was like hunting rabbits with howitzers. They destroyed more than they accomplished.

In the earliest days of the takeover effort, the political minds among their leaders searched for a battle cry to which Baptists would respond. They found it in the fear that we were not believing the Bible. It was a sound political decision because it created a vocabulary that worked.

“Save the Bible” rings a note of enthusiasm. “We do so believe the Bible” put the Soul Freedom Baptists on the defensive.

What actually happened was that for the first time secular political methods were used to secure control of what had been a great family of faith. The precinct by precinct concept of political enlistment prevailed because so many people simply refused to believe it was happening until it was too late.

The thing that distinguishes us as Baptists is that The Bible itself is our creed. We have developed statements of faith not as creeds but as descriptions of our perceptions of the Bible’s teachings. These have most often taken the form of local church covenants. Associations of churches have developed them. The Southern Baptist Convention did not have one until 1963. We usually developed our own congregational or associational covenants or depended on the New Hampshire confession of faith of 1833.

Baptists have strongly resisted creeds. By them people are excluded or included in fellowship. In fact the takeover people stoutly denied they were fashioning a creed as they urged alterations in the Baptist Faith and Message. Those of us who chose to cling to the Baptist insight of soul freedom tried to warn of this creeping creedalism. Our appeals fell on deaf ears. Now we are firing faithful missionaries because of our creed. We are excluding churches from our fellowship because of our creed. We are now seeing creeds as higher than Christ in our mission endeavors. We are firing professors in our schools because of our creed. The idea that we will have great spiritual awakening because we achieve theological conformity is simply not verified in experience. Awakenings and mission empowerment always leap the bounds of our structures of fellowship and doctrines. The Spirit bloweth where it listeth (John 3:8)

There have always been some Fundamentalists who found the diversity that comes from freedom of interpretation of the Book unacceptable. They have usually moved on. In a past generation the J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, Bob Jones mindset simply could not tolerate diverse interpretations and left, often in anger. Fundamentalists usually can work on various common causes with others so long as they are not a majority. When they have fifty-one percent of the votes, they are driven by their mindset to eliminate all who do not agree with them. It is a chilling experience to hear religious leaders calculate “collateral damage” as they plan their political moves.

It must be observed that the term “conservative resurgence” is also being used to describe the cultural and political attitude of our nation. For a number of complex reasons the pendulum swing has been in that direction. It is always a strong temptation for religion to reflect rather than affect the atmosphere of a nation. Fundamentalism in any religion, tied to political power, endangers freedom.

Historically, Fundamentalism has operated as a minority seeking to build walls of protection for its followers from a secular society’s influence. Since the current tides of secular politics favor fundamentalism, the challenge for this group of leaders is to use their influence to impact our nation as prophets rather than a puppet.

It was good to hear some notes of concern sounded at the conference about maintaining a biblical base for dealing with popular cultural or political ideas. Civil religion is cheap and easy. It would be heartening for all of us to see the leaders of the current Southern Baptist Convention have a resurgence of ethical and moral concern. They could help us all by rejecting the efforts of the Religious Right to secure a withdrawal of our people from participation in public education, or to seek tax money to propagate our faith, or to be complacent with our national failure to meet the challenge of rescuing the perishing of our world.

August 2004