I’m impressed by one quote in your email from the ABP article that I would comment on, as we draw this to a close.

“Lewis, a former church planter and college president, said he tried to be a reconciler and believed that much of the splintering in the SBC could have been avoided if conservatives offered political moderates who were theologically conservative a place at the table.”

Amen to that. When the USA defeated Germany and Japan in the war, we then looked for ways to rebuild those nations. When the CR was victorious, we should have set up parameters of doctrinal participation, then attempted to reconcile with conservatives who did not support the CR.

I fully agree with that statement. Larry Lewis is the type we need more of in the modern SBC.

We’ve done enough on this for this blog post

I think, though, that some adopted a “the ends justify the means” mentality. If you stood in the way of our ends (eliminating liberalism) then it was okay for us to grind you down. I do think some of our leaders fell prey to this common thing.

I do not think you are right when you say that leaders of the SBC CR cared only about politics and power. But, I do think that much damage was done to innocent people by those who let our ends (which I think were noble) justify some of the means taken to reach those ends (which I said AT THE TIME were not godly).

As you said, I’m not sure we’ll ever see this the same way, and I guess it is ultimately up to a higher judge to review all our actions, motives, and attitudes.

I have enjoyed our discussion. I don’t want to prolong it if we are just going over the same ground, but I will continue to try to respond to questions and opinions you might have.

I’ve pretty much said all I know.

I think you paint with too broad of brush strokes as you condemn all who were in the CR.

I KNOW the CR was about inerrancy, at least for a lot of us. I don’t know the hearts of people and I’m not sure how you do. But for me and many others like me, we genuinely wanted a conservative SBC with inerrantist professors.

And, I believe you are wrong about the idea that the SBC is controlled by anyone these days, especially some sort of CR cabal. That might have been true in days gone by. But the election of Frank Page sort of put an end to that (or began the end). Now, with blogging and the information and technology boom, it is hard for anyone to control things.

I know that some of our leaders did some things that were not right – words and actions. And in recent days, I have been pretty upset with some of the people I regarded as heroes.

But I think you are on dangerous ground to speak of people’s motives and purposes. I know there were a lot of us who showed up in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and St. Louis because we cared about inerrancy and were truly concerned about the liberalism that we saw growing in some of our seminaries.

I was appointed in 1978 and served under Baker James Cauthron, Keith Parks and Jerry Rankin.

ANSWERS IN CAPITALS

You said, “ I think inerrancy matters. I actually don’t care if you use the term. But I want the SBC to be populated by people who believe that the Bible is true.” I AGREE COMPLETELY. THAT IS WHY I OPPOSE THE CR. MATT 7:15-20. TOO MANY OF THE CR LEADERS TALK THE TALK BUT DO NOT WALK THE WALK.

We discussed the conservatives who did not support the CR – men like Dan Vestal, Winifred Moore, Richard Jackson. They were good men, but they protected the men in the seminaries who needed to be excised. I did not want men like my college professors teaching at our seminaries. I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT. HOW DID THEY PROTECT THE MEN IN THE SEMINARIES? THEY WERE NOT SEMINARY PRESIDENTS. THAT IS JUST OLD CR RHETORIC. I HAVE HEARD THAT SAID A HUNDRED TIMES AND IT IS NOT TRUE. THE CR LEADERS ATTACKED THEM BECAUSE THEY DEMANDED THE CR LEADERS BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CHARGES OF LIBERALISM.

I supported the CR because I believe that inerrancy is important and the CR supported inerrancy. I SUPPORT INERRANCY AND I OPPOSE THE CR BECAUSE I DO NOT THING THE CR SUPPORTS INERRANCY. SEE ABOVE.

The CR started 30 years ago and was effectively over 20 years ago, at least on a national level. ANY THEOLOGICAL ACTIONS WERE PROBABLY OVER 25 YEARS AGO BUT THE CR CONTINUES TODAY JUST AS STRONGLY AS EVER. IT IS CONTROLLED THROUGH THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS BY THE SAME PEOPLE OR THEIR DISCIPLES. PATTERSON, MOHLER, HUNT, FLOYD,ETC.

It is only in the last 5 years or so that problems have arisen. WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS TODAY THAT WE HAD IN THE BEGINNING . IT IS JUST MORE DIFFICULT TO HIDE THEM TODAY BECAUSE OF BLOGGING AND THE FACT THAT THE OBVIOUS FAILURES OF THE CR LEADERSHIP IN THE AREA OF MISSIONS, EVANGELISM AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAM SUPPORT ARE SHOWING UP.

Were you are missionary under previous administrations? I don’t know how long you’ve been on the field.

I know the world is much more difficult now. I know that things are tough for missionaries. But can you really say that things are worse now for the IMB than they were in the old days?

On what basis would you say that? BFM 2000? Those (silly) policies the IMB voted? I think the WORLD or Jerry Rankin. I like much of what he has done.

I would turn that back around on you. The CR started 30 years ago and was effectively over 20 years ago, at least on a national level.

I might say, “Come on, Ron. Blaming every currect issue in the SBC on the CR of 30 years ago is not right.”

1) I think inerrancy matters. I actually don’t care if you use the term. But I want the SBC to be populated by people who believe that the Bible is true.

We discussed the conservatives who did not support the CR – men like Dan Vestal, Winifred Moore, Richard Jackson. They were good men, but they protected the men in the seminaries who needed to be excised. I did not want men like my college professors teaching at our seminaries.

I want to be part of a denomination that is founded on scripture. I am not saying that the men above did not believe the Bible. But they were not willing to hold our seminary professors (and I think primarily of those at Southern, Southeastern and Midwestern here). I have heard horror stories (pretty credible stories) about the moral and spiritual conditions at those three seminaries prior to the CR.

I supported the CR because I believe that inerrancy is important and the CR supported inerrancy (imperfectly, okay – but it did it).

2) I supported the CR because I think it actually improved our institutions at first. I saw differences in Lifeway (Sunday School board) materials. I thought they were much better, more biblical. I saw improvements in NAMB (HMB) in the early years of the CR. I have always thought a lot of Rankin and thought his leadership at IMB (FMB) has been outstanding.

It is obvious that SWBTS has not prospered, if the numbers I hear are correct. And there are some actions and theological positions that I do not agree with. And I am in full agreement with you that Paige Patterson’s interference at the IMB was shameful. But these actions do not negate the good.

I saw great improvement in several of our boards and agencies (in my humble opinion) until recent years. I think that in the last 5 to 10 years, a problem has been growing. Not content to just enforce inerrancy, a small cadre of CR leaders have tried to enforce some kind of authoritarian leadership.

Where we differ on this is that you see it as part and parcel of the sickness of the CR. I see it as a departure from the success of the CR.

Ten years ago, I would have told you that you are wrong in your assessment of the SBC agencies. I thought NAMB was effective. I really like Rankin. Lifeway was cranking out Blackaby and TW Hunt stuff. Things were rolling and I thought all was well.

It is only in the last 5 years or so that problems have arisen.

3) I supported the CR because of the clear testimony of history. Every denomination that took a step or two on the liberalism road has sacrificed its spiritual vitality. United Methodists. Presbyterians. Episcopalians. We were 50 to 75 years behind them. They had embraced liberalism. We were just flirting with it. But I did not want to go where they went.

I’ll probably think of something else.

But, now, its your turn.

TC is a decent enough guy, but he is a prime example of what I talked about above. You can believe in inerrancy, be as conservative and faithful in doctrine as Paige Patterson himself. But, if you do not support the politics of the CR, he sees you as liberal or a liberal-sympathizer.

I never felt comfortable with the positions of fellows like that.