Talk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence

Why isn't this moved back yet?

I just now looked at the article history and realized this has been at the current title less than a month. Here I'd been assuming that the current name was of hoary antiquity, since usually this sort of exaggerated caution about changing anything is what we do when something has been around for a while. Why wasn't it summarily reverted? A.J.A. (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to look farther. This has always been the title. It was only last month that an editor changed the title in favor of conservative resurgence. This provoked controversy and here we are. Also, I don't know what is going on but your comment only shows up in the edit history. Ltwin (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, its showing up now.Ltwin (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Style concerns

Recent edits to the "Liberal and moderate reactions" has made the prose sound well less then desirable. I'm referring to this sentence: "As the more conservative (fundamentalist) movement grew in strength". Why is "more" needed after conservative movement, and why is "fundamentalist" in parentheses? If you want to call it fundamentalist, then call it fundamentalist and let the sentence flow well and alot less confusing. Ltwin (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the conservative viewpoint not represented?

I looked through your bibliography, and I did not find a SINGLE reference to any book or article on the struggle from a conservative perspective. Why are there no citations from Jerry Sutton's "The Baptist Reformation", or James C. Hefley's "The Truth in Crisis"? Why are there no references to Paul Pressler's memoir, "A Hill on Which To Die"? This article was clearly written by propagandists who have axes to grind.

I tried to add a comment from a conservative perspective, and it was reverted. If you're so committed to "liberty of conscience", why are you practicing censorship? It's this kind of liberal hypocrisy that prompted the conservative resurgence.

Just added your three suggested references. Thank you. There is no censorship or intended hypocrisy. Anonymous "IP" users are often looked at with suspicion, however. You didn't even sign your note with your IP address. Suggest you sign up and contribute to the article in a neutral point of view manner. Non-neutral text will be reverted. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the words of a notorious Congressman, "You lie!" This article is anything but neutral.

Spoken like a true Takeover Fundamentalist. A sincere effort was made to reach out to you, and you are rude, crude, and obnoxious. Stay anonymous, because this sort of thing is not condoned in Wiki.Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you should read WP:Civility. Rudeness is not condoned on Wikipedia, even if you are responding to someone else's rudeness. Ltwin (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All I did was tell the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. Agree or disagree with this article as you choose, but to say it has any semblance of neutrality is just plain dishonest. If you don't like being called a liar, then tell the truth. User: 67.233.88.132.

It does not matter 67.233.88.132. Wikipedia has a policy, and all editors are expected to follow policies. Here are some other important policies. WP:NPOV gives guidance on how to edit neutrally with no particular point of view in mind. This is an encyclopedia not advocacy. We do not advocate for any party on any issue. WP:NOR says that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia which brings us to WP:V. In short, this policy mandates that all material in an article be verifiable, meaning it is cited by a reliable source.

If you want your contributions to be accepted, then follow these guidelines and you should have no problems. One more thing, when leaving a comment it helps readers to know who one is talking to if you sign your name after your finish. You can do this by typing four of these ~ like this: ~~~~ . Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why was this article so biased toward the liberal perspective? You cited almost no conservative writers at all until I called you on it. Before I made some corrections, this article was highly slanted toward the liberal perspective. As I said below, I don't begrudge anyone their biases; I certainly have mine. But please don't insult my intelligence with claims of "neutrality."67.233.88.132 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on 67.233.88.132, before you go any further you need to figure out who you are talking to. I did not add anything to the article after you "called [me] on it" so I don't know why you are saying this to me. Also, I have only made stylistic and editorial changes to this page; I have never added any source material or new data to this article whether "liberal" or "conservative".

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence with claims of neutrality. I'm giving you Wikipedia policy so that, if you follow them, your edits will not get reverted. Trust me 67.233.88.132, stop crying that everyone on this page are flaming liberals and you will get alot farther here. If there are problems then change them and source those changes; or, alternatively, you can bring the issue here on the talk page and build consensus for your changes. However, I can guarantee that if you keep up that tone, you will have alienated everyone who might want to help you.

Also, you may want to refrain from dividing up other people's comments. Some people don't like it and it also makes it hard to figure out who wrote the fragments. Ltwin (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your instructions to me: "stop crying that everyone on this page are flaming liberals and you will get alot farther here." Would you please show me where I ever said any such thing? Such accusations do nothing for your credibility.67.233.88.132 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to any specific statement, but the general tone of your comments:

• "If you're so committed to 'liberty of conscience', why are you practicing censorship? It's this kind of liberal hypocrisy that prompted the conservative resurgence."
• "Agree or disagree with this article as you choose, but to say it has any semblance of neutrality is just plain dishonest. If you don't like being called a liar, then tell the truth."
• "Then why was this article so biased toward the liberal perspective? You cited almost no conservative writers at all until I called you on it. Before I made some corrections, this article was highly slanted toward the liberal perspective. As I said below, I don't begrudge anyone their biases; I certainly have mine. But please don't insult my intelligence with claims of 'neutrality.'"

Glad to know you don't think we're all flaming liberals. Ltwin (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I concede that you're neutral.67.233.88.132 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "you" that keeps being referred to. Please, if an edit is wrong or not neutral then call that edit out but lets not get into labeling people "neutral" or "nonneutral". It sounds like we're talking about Switzerland. Ltwin (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's particularly annoying coming from an anonymous editor. I'm Orange Mike, Michael James Lowrey, Jim and Blondell's oldest (the one who moved Up North), still technically a member in good standing of Bethel Baptist in Deanburg, Tennessee but now a convinced Quaker. Who is 67.233.88.132 that he/she could condemn me or my fellow editors? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some who thought the term "Fundamentalist Takeover" was a harsh characterization may better understand the derivation of the term from this anonymous user.Afaprof01 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I made some edits, this article was HEAVILY biased toward the liberal perspective. Before I called your attention to it, there weren't any sources in this article that dealt with the controversy from a conservative standpoint. How can any person with integrity call such an article "neutral"?67.233.88.132 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"What was the real issue?" Section

Looking this section over I get the impression that it's rambling and POV. Am I just reading my own bias into the article? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Myths and facts about the Conservative Resurgence.

MYTH: "Baptists have generally avoided authoritative statements of doctrinal belief (creeds)" (this is a direct quote from the "neutral" Wikipedia article).

FACT: Doctrinal statements have played an important role in Baptist life at least since the early 17th century. True, Baptists have generally preferred the term "confession" to "creed." According to most dictionaries, though, the two words mean practically the same.

MYTH: The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (drafted by so-called "fundamentalists") is one of the most narrow doctrinal statements ever adopted by Baptists.

FACT: The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is actually quite broad compared to Baptist confessions of the past, having only eighteen articles. The Second London Confession of 1644 had thirty-two articles. The Orthodox Creed of 1678 had fifty articles (yes, the Orthodox Creed was a Baptist statement, and it used the word "creed" - putting the lie to the claim that Baptists have never believed in creeds).

MYTH: The word "inerrancy" was never used among Southern Baptists before the 1970's.

FACT: A.T. Robertson, perhaps the most revered New Testament scholar in the history of Southern Baptists, used the word "inerrancy" as early as 1892. See his article, "The Inerrancy of the Scriptures" (Western Recorder, June 30, 1892, reprinted in The Best of A.T. Roberston, Broadman & Holman, 1996, pp. 171-174).

Or consider the words of J.M. Frost, founder of the Baptist Sunday School Board (now Lifeway Christian Resources): "We accept the Scriptures as an all-sufficient and infallible rule of faith and practice, and insist upon the absolute inerrancy and sole authority of the Word of God. We recognize at this point no room for division, either of practice or belief, or even sentiment" (Baptist Why and Why Not, January 1, 1900; reprinted by Broadman & Holman as part of the "Baptist Classics" series in 1996).

Ok if you have sources for your material and you present it in a neutral point of view, then what is the problem? If you follow Wikipedia's guidlines, then your edits will be accepted. If a side to the controversy is not told, it is because people who want that side told are complaining on the talk page instead of editing the article. Also, please remember to sign your name with four ~ . Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem is, most of this article is NOT presented "from a neutral point of view." People are entitled to their biases, but I do think a little more honesty is in order. In fact, parts of this article were just flat wrong before I made corrections. Clark Pinnock's theology was never an issue in the sixties and early seventies. He was very conservative in those days. "Open theism" didn't become an issue until the nineties. Pinnock was long gone from the SBC by that time.67.233.88.132 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

67.233, I only note that in the Southern Baptist churches of my youth, it was a matter of pride that we had no creeds, which were dismissed as a barrier created in the dark days of Catholicism to stand between the believer and the pure truth of Scripture. I never heard of the New Hampshire or other confessions until I was in my 20s and became interested in religious history. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also grew up hearing that Baptists had no creeds. I heard it all the way through my college years. In my own study of Baptist history, though, I found that such claims are rooted more in legend than in fact.67.233.88.132 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree from my heritage. The Hobbs/Mullins book Axioms of Religion also says Baptists have no creeds, and that this is a Baptist distinctive. Here's an interesting quote from the main SBC article re: creeds and the takeover:

...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.

— Jimmy R. Allen (President, SBC, 1978-79)

Afaprof01 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read E.Y. Mullins' essay on "Baptists and Creeds." In that essay, he argued that Baptists have always reserved the right to express their beliefs in a "definite and formal way." He also decried those who were attempting to turn the Baptist denomination into a "free lance club" (Mullins' own words). I don't have the book with me, but I'll try and cite the full quote tomorrow.67.233.88.132 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The assessment section should have some discussion over whether the issue was really about creedalism. We have the Jimmy Allen quote which nicely represents that perspective and I want to include a reference to the BP article disputing the claim be referring to the BWA's recent recitation of the Apostles Creed with the CBF in attendance. I think that there should be some sort of synthesis in which the article concludes that "authoritarianism" was an issue but that specifically "creedalism" probably was not. Does anyone know of a source that says basically this so I'm not dinged for original research? Eugeneacurry (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of divergent views articles:

• http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/I/imb.html by a conservative with a lot of objectivity
• http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob2/hobbs_preserves_missions.htm

Afaprof01 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If "creedalism" was not the issue, then why was that the favorite buzz-word among moderates and liberals throughout the 1980's? Are you saying they were dishonest?67.233.88.132 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly relevant, but I'm saying that the "counter-revolutionary" academics often used anti-creedal rhetoric to forestall questions of belief and practice. I'm saying, in essense, they utilized the baptist-friendly "don't tell me what to do!" argument because it conveniently ruled out of court questions of what, specifically, they didn't hold in common with the great majority of Southern Baptists who were writing checks to support the seminaries. Eugeneacurry (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Are any pictures availible for say a crucial moment in the controversy. For example, like any photos from a Convention that elected a conservative president or pictures of any leaders from either the resurgence or leaders from the opposition? Ltwin (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

E.Y. Mullins on creeds / confessions

A comment from a previous section made this statement: "The Hobbs/Mullins book Axioms of Religion also says Baptists have no creeds, and that this is a Baptist distinctive." E.Y. Mullins wrote The Axioms of Religion, and I'm assuming "Hobbs" refers to the late Herschel H. Hobbs.

Here are some quotes from E.Y. Mullins:

Our traditional championship of liberty and individualism is constantly cited against new declarations of faith. How exactly the opposite is true. The publication of confessions of faith has been a constant expression of our ideal of liberty. Repression at this point is exactly what Baptists do not want. Repression covers up, hides belief, and under the cover all kinds of errors breed and flourish ("Baptists and Creed", reprinted in The Axioms of Religion, Baptist Classics series, Broadman Press, 1997, p. 187, emphasis added).

The Baptist denomination has never allowed creeds to be imposed on it by others. It has never compelled anyone in the denomination to accept the Baptist confessions of faith. But Baptists have always insisted on their own right to declare their beliefs in a definite, formal way, and to protect themselves by refusing to support men in important places as teachers and preachers who do not agree with them. This group right of self-protection is as sacred as any individual right. If a group of men known as Baptists consider themselves trustees of certain great truths, they have an inalienable right to conserve and propogate those truths unmolested by others in the denomination who oppose those truths. The latter have an equal right to unite with another group agreeing with them. But they have no right to make of the Baptist denomination a free lance club (ibid. pp. 189-190, emphasis added).

[Confessions] define certain great limits within which a man is entitled to call himself a Baptist (ibid., p. 190)67.233.88.132 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting quotes from Hershel Hobbs

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from the great Southern Baptist statesman, Herschel Hobbs:

In the academic world, whether in a university or a seminary, professors voluntarily accept limitation. "The Baptist Faith and Message" is careful to protect individual freedoms, but it also sets forth tenets of faith as safeguards against irresponsible exercise of freedom contrary to the generally accepted faith held by others of that persuasion. To put it even more plainly, I would fight for your right to teach or preach whatever you wish. But that does not mean I should provide you a livelihood, building, and a ready-made audience to which to do it (My Faith and Message: An Autobiography, Broadman & Holman, 1993: p. 251, emphasis added).

At the Pittsburg Convention in 1983, Wayne Dehoney asked how I saw the controversy. I told him I saw it as a course correction. If a rocket headed for Mars veers off course by only a fraction of a degree, the error, if not corrected will cause that rocket to miss its target by a million miles (ibid., p. 254).

That's not to imply that Dr. Hobbs agreed with every aspect of the Conservative Resurgence - he didn't - but neither did he entirely disagree with it.67.233.88.132 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resurgence/takeover

Isn't "resurgence/takeover" redundant? Is it necessary to note everytime the word "resurgence" is mentioned that it is also called by detractors a takeover? Ltwin (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary every time. I'd prefer to see both terms used interchangeably at random. The words themselves have different meanings and connotations. Resurgence's POV is that we're taking things back to the way they once were (more conservative); Takeover's POV is that the more conservative Takeover party wrested control away from the moderates. Both terms are used together in several key histories. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Committee on Committees / Committee on Boards

One of your reference notes contains a slight inaccuracy. It says the Committee on Committees was known as the Committee on Boards during most of the controversy. That's not true. The Committee on Boards is now called the Committee on Nominations, and it appoints the boards for the various entities. This committee, in turn, is appointed by the Committee on Committees, which is appointed by the SBC president.

I wanted to correct the note in the article, but for some reason I wasn't allowed access to it.67.233.88.132 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another inaccuracy...

This article stated that the 1979 Southern Baptist Convention took place at the Astrodome. It was actually held at The Summit. I understand the Astrodome has a seating capacity of over 60,000. The SBC has never had large enough attendance to justify such a venue. The 1985 meeting was the largest in SBC history, and its attendance was only about 45,000. I took the liberty of correcting the article.97.73.64.164 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's been fixed and referenced. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Creeds" and "confession"....

The article contains this statement: "Baptists have generally avoided authoritative statements of doctrinal belief (creeds). The creed becomes a list of beliefs one must subscribe to in order to belong. Instead, Baptists historically have used 'confessions of faith' arrived at by group consensus instead of imposed by higher authorities."

This statement is both misleading and disingenuous. If you look up the words "creed" and "confession" in a dictionary, you'll see that the two words mean basically the same. Doctrinal statements have been an important part of Baptist life for centuries. When the SBC was first organized, no one saw the need for a formal doctrinal statement because it was assumed that all Southern Baptists subscribed to the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, and other key doctrines. With the rise of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy in the early twentieth century, it became necessary for Southern Baptists to define their beliefs. E.Y. Mullins openly defended the use of formal doctrinal statements for such a purpose.97.73.64.164 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making some corrections.97.73.64.164 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement above is also misleading because it implies conservatives were trying to "impose" their beliefs on the majority of Southern Baptists. The fact is, their beliefs represented the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists, and that is why they prevailed. No amount of liberal "spin" is going to change that reality.76.4.66.91 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Baptists and creeds: legend and fact.

I don't know if any of you have ever seen the movie, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." In that movie, Jimmy Stewart plays a U.S. Senator who attends a funeral in a backwater town. Naturally, people are curious as to why he is there, so he explains himself to a local newspaper reporter. By the end of the movie, Stewart reveals he is not the hero everyone thinks he is. The reporter has been taking all of this down, and then he tears up his notes. When asked why, he replies, "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Unfortunately, this seems to be the philosophy of certain Baptist historians when it comes to Baptists and creeds. The article claims: "Since its founding, Baptists have almost exclusively avoided authoritative statements of doctrinal belief (creeds)." Unfortunately, that statement is rooted more in legend than in fact. Baptists have always reserved the right to express their beliefs in a formal manner. Many Southern Baptist stalwarts such as B.H. Carroll, L.R. Scarborough, E.Y. Mullins, J.B. Gambrell, and W.T. Conner recognized that Baptists have the right and the obligation to impose certain limits on what may and may not be taught in their theological schools. True, they believed people should have room for disagreement in the grayer areas, such as eschatology. However, they uniformly recognized that some doctrines were non-negotiable. These included the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of the gospel, and the infallible inspiration of Scripture.

The conservative leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have done nothing more than turn the denomination back to its doctrinal roots. Liberal revisionists cannot except that fact, and that's why they feel compelled to re-write history.24.56.112.3 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I love the line where it says that Baptists do not believe in female pastors because of the Edenic Fall. Baptists do not believe in female pastors because of Paul's letters to Timothy. The source used to justify this mistake is a revisionist history book. Steve (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to find a specific verifiable source. Until then, it's restored. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the First London Confession? The Second London Confession? The Orthodox Creed of 1678? All of these were Baptist statements of faith. That alone seems to put the lie to the claim that Baptists have never believed in creeds.97.73.64.171 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Baptists have produced so many doctrinal statements down through the years, it seems to me the burden of proof is on those who insist Baptists do not believe in creeds. The only "authoritative source" you've cited in favor of that position is Walter Shurden, and he's hardly an unbiased source. What is his proof?97.73.64.171 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Want an "authoritative source"? E.Y. Mullins was largely the author of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. Here's what he said about Baptists and creeds:

The Baptist denomination has never allowed creeds to be imposed on it by others. It has never compelled anyone in the denomination to accept the Baptist confessions of faith. But Baptists have always insisted on their own right to declare their beliefs in a definite, formal way, and to protect themselves by refusing to support men in important places as teachers and preachers who do not agree with them. This group right of self-protection is as sacred as any individual right. If a group of men known as Baptists consider themselves trustees of certain great truths, they have an inalienable right to conserve and propogate those truths unmolested by others in the denomination who oppose those truths. The latter have an equal right to unite with another group agreeing with them. But they have no right to make of the Baptist denomination a free lance club ("Baptists and Creeds", reprinted in The Axioms of Religion, Baptist Classics series, Broadman Press, 1997, pp. 189-190, emphasis added).97.73.64.171 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is Shurden's proof?

Your article contains this statement: "Since its founding, Baptists have almost exclusively avoided authoritative statements of doctrinal belief (creeds)." That statement is not true. Baptists have produced formal doctrinal statements since the early seventeenth century. The Orthodox Creed of 1678 was a Baptist statement of faith, and it actually used the term "creed."

The only "proof" you've cited to the contrary is a book by Walter Shurden, who is hardly an unbiased source. What documentation does he give to back up this contention?97.73.64.160 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I was asked on RfPP to add semi-protection against vandalism, but as this seems to be a regular content dispute I've added full protection for three days. Hopefully that'll be long enough to find a compromise; if it needs to be extended please ask me or on RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

More quotes to debunk the myth...

Your article states: "Since its founding, Baptists have almost exclusively avoided authoritative statements of doctrinal belief (creeds)." I repeat, this assertion is based more on legend than on fact. Here are a few quotes which put the lie to this assertion:

As a matter of fact, Baptists have published a large number of articles of faith. Professor McGlothin's Baptist Confessions of Faith (Publication Society, 1919) has 368 pages. On these pages are printed a long list of Baptist creedal statements. These confessions were published under a variety of circumstances. In each instance there was a good ground for the publication.... Our traditional championship of liberty and individualism is constantly cited against new declarations of faith. How exactly the opposite is true. The publication of confessions of faith has been a constant expression of our ideal of liberty. Repression at this point is exactly what Baptists do not want. Repression covers up, hides beliefs, and under the cover all kinds of errors breed and flourish (E.Y. Mullins, "Baptists and Creeds", reprinted in The Axioms of Religion, Baptists Classics series, Broadman & Holman, 1997; pp. 186-187, emphasis added).

We hear much said today about a creedless church. What kind of a church would a creedless church be? Of all the absurdities that I ever heard of I think the idea of a creedless church is the greatest. The creed of a church is what the church believes. A creedless church, therefore, would be a church that believed nothing. I think I know of one place where such an organization would be appropriate; viz, in the insane asylum." (W.T. Conner, Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 7, No. 2, April, 1923; Reprinted in Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 51, No. 1, Fall 2008, p. 26, emphasis added).

Creeds formed or enforced by the civil authority are usurpations, leading to persecution and to despotism; while those formed by voluntary associations of Christians, enforced by no higher penalty or sanction than exclusion from membership in the society, are not really lawful, but necessary in the present state of the religious world. (S.M. Noel, "Circular Letter on Confessions of Faith", 1826, reprinted in Treasures from the Baptist Heritage, Baptist Classics series, Broadman & Holman, 1996; p. 140, emphasis added). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.67.162 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Want more proof?

Here is an interesting quote from J.B. Gambrell, who was president of the SBC from 1917 to 1921:

The large matters of the Baptist faith have been condensed into two creedal statements, the New Hampshire and the Philadelphia Articles of Faith. There is no vital difference between the two. They have had wide use among our people and have done much to clarify the thinking of Baptists. They have fixed the Baptist mind on the nerve centers of revealed truth. They have put up the fences against the invasions of many hurtful heresies, and have contributed largely to the efficiency of the denomination by promoting unity. On the understanding of truth, as set out in these articles, most of our churches and associations have been constituted. Our two seminaries [Southern and Southwestern at that time] in the south were founded on well defined articles of faith, as a safeguard against the seducing spirits which haunt such places.

Baptists need not be shy of setting before the world in terms unmistakable, what they believe. We are glad to do it, both for the sake of challenging the world to a consideration of the truth stated, with the Scriptures teaching it, and to duly inform the world as to our faith. It is tremendously educating. Spurgeon well said beware of the man who avoids clear statement. And well we may.("The Uses and Abuses of Creedal Statement", from Christian Union Relative to Baptist Churches, ed. by J.M. Frost, Sunday School Board, 1914; reprinted in The Baptist Banner, Vol. 2, #7, September 1994, emphasis added).

In other words, it is simply not true that Baptists have "almost exclusively avoided" creedal statements. Baptists have always cherished religious liberty, and the SBC still fully supports the right of any church to leave the SBC and join another denomination. However, to say that Baptists have always opposed formal doctrinal statements is pure revisionism.76.4.66.164 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again.

It is NOT TRUE that Baptists have "almost exclusively avoided" the use of creeds. I have given abundant evidence by eminent Baptist theologians to reinforce this argument. The only "evidence" you've offered to the contrary is a work by Walter Shurden, and he is hardly an unbiased source. I will continue to remove this bit of misinformation until you can provide some more substantial evidence.97.73.64.164 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User 97.73.64.164 that is not the way Wikipedia works. We do not remove material that is attributed to a reliable source just because we disagree with that source's viewpoint. Wikipedia strives to present a neutral point of view. Furthermore, we do not post our evidence on the talk page but instead insert citations into the article so that information is reliable and verifiable. Let me reiterate: We do not remove material simply because we disagree with it. We must work with other editors to arrive at a consensus. This is why the talk page is here. Ltwin (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Walter Shurden is NOT a reliable source. I've cited several quotes from eminent Baptists of the past which proved that Baptists most certainly have used creeds. We may disagree regarding how much weight Baptists have given to these creeds, but it is simply untrue that Baptists have "almost exclusively avoided" them. Why would Wikipedia want to print something that is demonstrably false?24.56.112.3 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm referring to. Instead of discussing this with the editors of this page and trying to seek consensus, you are deleting a view that in your opinion is wrong and whose source in your point of view is unreliable. You make no attempt of using your sources in the article to offer the reader a fuller picture of the debate about the Baptist use of creeds. No, you just delete something that you don't like. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia. I would suggest that if you really feel strongly about this that you seek more editor input. A good way to do this would be to leave a message on the talk page of Baptists. Also, you could also seek help from the Anabaptist and Baptist work group. Ltwin (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "deleting something I don't like"; I'm not deleting something that's NOT TRUE. You asked for sources, and I've supplied them. It is simply not true that Baptists have "almost exclusively avoided" creeds. This is only one of many factual errors that I've corrected in your article. For instance, your article earlier claimed that the 1979 SBC was held at the Astrodome, when in fact it was never been held there. This contempt for facts does not enhance Wikipedia's reputation, which is not too good as it is.97.73.64.165 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to indicate in the article that the moderate faction believed that Baptist have historically avoided creeds. Then juxtapose that in the article with some of the sources you've provided here. Eugene (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly. I have asked 97.73.64.165 repeatedly to address the issue in the article with the proper sources. Instead, he or she has chosen to just delete information without providing evidence in the article. He or she has up until now only saw fit to argue this on the talk page. Ltwin (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is, shall we say, somewhat less than truthful. I've attempted to address the issue in the article, and you've always found some pretext to change it back. That's why I chose to bring it to your attention in the discussion section.97.73.64.166 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is this you you keep referring to? There are many people who edit this article, yet to here you speak is to think that you think there is one person writing this article. What I have reverted are instances or sourced material being removed from the article and replaced with material that is not sourced. As I have said before, I not knowledgeable about this subject and you really need to seek input from other editors who work in the Baptist articles. I will not let anyone just put what they want in this article but I can't contribute to this discussion in any way. As I've said, you need to seek input from other editors, work together and hammer out a consensus, or craft a narrative in the article that is sourced and has a neutral point of view. Ltwin (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "you" to whom I'm referring is the person or persons who keep getting the information wrong. I thought that was rather self-explanatory. Evidently you are not aware that the pronoun "you" can be plural as well as singular. Evidently your knowledge of grammar is as rusty as your knowledge of Baptist history.76.4.66.18 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clark Pinnock

I have repeatedly corrected the section that refers to Clark Pinnock. He was never an issue in the conservative resurgence. During his years at New Orleans he was quite conservative, and had a strong influence on future conservative leaders such as Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson. By the time the resurgence began, Pinnock had already left New Orleans Seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention. The article also called Pinnock "an advocate of open theism", implying that he taught this belief during his tenure at New Orleans. He did not embrace open theism until the 1990's, long after he left New Orleans. I have taken the liberty of making corrections.76.4.66.18 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"25 year old trustee"

"Roy Honeycutt, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, was accused by a twenty-five-year-old new trustee of 'not believing the Bible.'" Why is it relevant that the trustee was 25 years old? This sounds ad hominem. If someone wants to say that the trustee was not qualified to make the accusation, those reasons should be given. But failing that, "25 year old" and "new" sound like an attempt to undercut the accusation without answering its accuracy.Jim (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ltwin (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New Baptist Covenant

Should there be a section in this article about the New Baptist Covenant? It seems relevant given it its formation seems to be directly related to the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Jimmy Carter famously broke with the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 and soon after formed the New Baptist Covenant along with Bill Clinton and Bill Underwood. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see now that there is an article, but I still think it would be useful to readers to have a small section here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue Quote Panels

What are the blue Quote Panels? It seems strange to have so many highlighted quotes in the article. It seems those should be added into the text of the article instead. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Declining Influence

I propose that there is a section about Declining Political influence. This AP/Huffington Post article discusses the subject at length. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/southern-baptists-religious-freedom_n_3414195.html Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a section with supporting references. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Title Change

Posters in 2009 indicated that this has not always been the title of this article. The nomenclature used here is very partisan in the context of Baptist life, favoring heavily the conservative/fundamentalist account of events. "Takeover" is obviously also partisan in favor of the moderate/liberal account. The article itself points this out in the opening paragraph, yet opts for the conservative POV -- this seems a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. "Conservative shift" or "conservative controversy" are more neutral and in accordance with NPOV. Since the actual subject of said controversy is debated by all, perhaps something along the lines of "conservative institutional shift" might be appropriate. This was not often a battle fought in congregations, but in the institutions of Baptist life. Nancy Ammerman, a scholar of sociology and religion who doesn't have a dog in this fight, refers to it as "conflict," which may be a even more apropos term. "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Conflict" or "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Controversy" may be more appropriate. "Resurgence" is definitely not an NPOV title for this article. --Wesleyespears (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)