Understanding the Southern Baptist Convention: Adrian Rogers’ Perspective

Adrian Rogers and the Southern Baptist Convention, May 1988

Personal Obervations: Michael Spradlin, Ph.D.

I can still see Dr. Adrian Rogers on the midtown Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary campus when he rose to speak in the chapel that day. As students, we were always hungry for any news of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. The denominational press agencies generally slanted their reporting to make Bible-believing conservatives look foolish or even evil. Adrian Rogers was not only the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, our next-door neighbor in Memphis, but he was also a great champion for Mid-America Seminary. Many of us had been at the national meetings each Summer to vote our conscience and support pastors like Adrian Rogers in what would later be called The Battle for the Bible.

In a day when conservatives were accused of being harsh and hateful, I remember how Dr. Rogers showed great love while being incredibly direct. Also, his penetrating logic and communication skills took complex issues and made biblically convincing arguments. You laughed, said amen, and never thought of the issue the same way again. He remains one of the greatest communicators I have ever known.

The audio is included at the end of the article, but the sound quality reflects what happens to cassette tapes after over 30 years.

Special Report to the Students at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis, Tennessee

  I want to say that it is, as always, a distinct joy to be here with you, one of my favorite groups of men and ladies in all of the wide world. Our president, Dr. [Gray] Allison asked me if I could come tomorrow and speak to you about the Southern Baptist Convention and I told him I would be happy to do so if I could clear my calendar and so when I looked I had a hard appointment that a fast appointment that I could not break and so they said well just come on Tuesday and so I’m here.

  I did not prepare a message as such, but that does not mean I’m not prepared because I have been soaked in all of what I’m going to be talking to you about for more than 10 years, just saturated with it.

So, what I’m going to say today is more or less stream of consciousness, and there will be a certain cohesion to it when we’re finished. But it may not all be in proper sequence. So, you bear with me because I’m going to talk to you more or less out of my heart, somewhat as if we were having a cup of coffee together, alright? And then after it is over, I want you to ask questions of me.

         And even what you might consider to be hard questions, that’ll just sharpen me up for the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio. So, I won’t mind any questions that you have to ask me, and I certainly don’t expect you to agree with me on every jot and tittle and iota of thought. But let me just talk to you basically about what the problem in the Southern Baptist Convention is.

I feel that Southern Baptists began with a moderately narrow theology. That is, we held certain theological parameters together. And we didn’t argue about these things. We would discuss various views of Calvinism and eschatology and various things like this, but there was a commonality of belief, especially about the authority, the inerrancy, the infallibility, the authenticity, the impeccability, the reliability of the Word of God. We never argued that. And so, we had kind of a moderate [laughter], excuse me, we had a narrow, a narrow theology. But we had a broad program.

         We had a societal type of mission outreach. One person would be doing this, and another person would be doing that, and various spokesmen for the various agencies and societies would visit the churches, and the better speakers seemed to get more money, and some very needful causes were left standing behind the door. So, in 1925, we came along with something called the Cooperative Program, which by the way was begun, instituted at least affirmed here in Memphis, Tennessee, and Dr. Roy Beaman [Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, MABTS, theology professor] just told me a little while ago, he was there when it happened, right, right here. Of course, nothing happened where Dr. Beaman was not there, but at least around somewhere.

                  But we, we said with the narrow theology, we needed a narrow program, and so what we did, we got the Cooperative Program, which was never meant to be the coercive program, but the Cooperative Program and so now we have this moderately narrow theology in this moderately narrow program. Not trying to make put a steel band around everybody’s theology and not trying to put a steel band around everybody’s dollars but by and large agreeing that because we believe a certain way, we’re going to work together a certain way and so now our train is running on two narrow tracks. That’s the best way for a train to run it.

There’s less track friction the more narrow the track and so here these were the golden years of Southern Baptists, and our locomotive was getting down the track and doing well now here’s what happened. We started with this narrow theology, this broad program. We got the broad program and then you know what happened. I mean we got the narrow program then here’s what happened we broaden the theology. And we had German rationalistic theology and neo-orthodoxy and some pure liberalism that came in, actually, as Jude said, crept in, came in the side door, very clandestinely, very quietly, like leaven, leavening the lump.

But it came in, started primarily in institutions of higher learning, in some pulpits, but primarily in the institutions of higher learning. So, then we have now a broader theology, but we still have the narrow program. There was a time in Southern Baptist life when the great sin was not to be aberrant theologically, but to be aberrant in your program. That is, if you did not give all of the money like you’re told to give it and have all of the program like you’re told to have it, then you’re stubborn. You are a non-cooperative Southern Baptist. But over here [theologically], there was more room to meander.

Well, there are some people over here who said, “I am not going to take my money and support that which is against my conscience.” Now, I will agree in things that are not matters of conscience. I’ll agree even to compromise, but I cannot compromise conscience. And one of the great non-negotiables, that conservatives have is the Word of God.

Now, the Word of God and the God of that Word are not identical, but they’re inseparable. They’re inseparable and God says He’s exalted His Word above His name and the only thing we know about all theology other than your guess or my guess is what God’s Word says.

So, we have the Word of God over here and that we have some over here who believe as I’m going to show you that the Word of God can have error and mistake and embellishment and so forth. So, these folks over here said that’s not right. Now, here’s what we started out with. Here was best. This happened. And now these folks are saying, if you have this, then you must have this. If you say over here there is room to meander theologically, we’re going to say over here there must be room to support selectively. Because we’re not going to support everything you believe unless you believe more less like we believe. We’re not going to put our dollars behind that which we don’t agree with. It would be foolish for me to stand in Bellevue’s sanctuary and preach against liberalism and then take up an offering to pay for it.

That doesn’t make sense. It’s contrary. It’s contrary to common sense. So now this was not good. This is really not good because our train will run on two broad tracks, but it’ll run so slow. We don’t have near the effectiveness that we used to have. So, what is best? To have that moderately narrow theology and that moderately narrow program. So, what we’re trying to say is if you want us to continue to be cooperating Southern Baptists, then let’s narrow this theology back like it was when we began. That’s what it’s all about. So, let’s just go right back. It’s not a takeover movement. It is, if anything, a take-back movement. I don’t even like that. But a correction to go back to who we are and what we were historically. Now, that’s the root of the whole matter. We are not trying to force our beliefs on anybody. I wouldn’t do it for anything in the world.

        I believe in total freedom for all five billion people on the face of this earth. If a man wants to be a Buddhist, I’ll fight for his right to be a Buddhist. Anybody has the dubious right to believe anything he or she wants to believe, and they’ll answer to God and not to me about it. Okay, everybody, we believe in soul freedom, what we call the competency of the soul to stand before God. We would not force our views on anybody period.

Now get that in your hearts and minds because we’re often caricatured and ridiculed as those who are trying by mind control to force our views on someone else. Not so. Look, but a professor who was what I would call a liberal professor, said to me, “Adrian, don’t force your views on me and I won’t force my views on you.” I said, “Friend, I’m not going to force my views on you, but don’t you tell me that I have to underwrite what you believe. Because when you tell me that I have to underwrite it, you, sir, are forcing your beliefs on me. You believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe. You raise the money for what you believe, and don’t tell me that I have to drive the getaway car while you rob the bank. Now you can believe whatever you want to believe and we’ll go sit down and drink coffee and I’ll try and persuade you and you can try and persuade me. But when you, sir, tell me that I have to support that, you, sir, are forcing your belief on me. You want to be free? You’re free. But remember, so am I. You’re free to believe it and I’m free not to pay for it.

Now see that’s the freedom that we’re asking for and so long as you have this narrow program and this broad theology That’s not going to work. We’re not going to be forced to support that which we don’t agree with I’m not talking about some a theological peccadillo or preference. I’m talking about a conviction, a conviction. We’re not going to support with our money indefinitely.

You say, well, do you support it all? Some things you don’t agree with. Yes, you support some things that you don’t agree with convictionally. I hang my head and say yes. But now let me tell you why. I do it as a strategy, but not as a goal. Now, as long as I can see that we’re making progress and there is the ability to make change, then I may support some things I do not agree with as a temporary strategy to get to a larger goal. But when it is merely a means of accommodating something and I say no hope of change, then that’s the day I’m going to stop supporting it, period. Now, every man must make up his own mind where the strategy ends and the compromise begins. And that’s where the agony of soul gets to be so great. Now, let me tell you basically then what we’re about.

        And I say we; I’m in the middle of it. I didn’t ask to be, I was shoved into it by Providence, but in 1979 I was elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention in Houston, Texas. I went to that convention not expecting to be nominated. As a matter of fact, I had made up my mind determined that I would not allow my name to be placed in nomination, and I did not agree to be nominated to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention until early in the morning on Tuesday morning of the election. But there are two things that shook me to my foundation.

       One was Ms. Bertha Smith [SBC missionary, a part of the Shantung Revival in China] who I think knows how to pray and she said, “Adrian,” or “Brother Adrian,” as she would say, “I have been praying about this, and it is God’s will in my estimation that you allow your name to be placed in nomination.” And then the other person who spoke to my heart and confirm that so much, Dr. Charlie Culpepper [MABTS missions professor and SBC missionary, also part of the Shantung Revival in Chin]. Dr. Charlie Culpepper sent word to me and he said, “Tell Adrian that I’ve been with God and God says he’s to do that.” Folks, that’s heavy.

And in the middle of the early morning on Tuesday, I said, “All right, I’ll allow my name to be placed in nomination.” I was thrust into a maelstrom, into a vortex of controversy, elected and then went out immediately to face a forest of microphones, hostile questions, all kinds of hostility about this that was coming from what we call the moderate camp.

Well in the ensuing years, I’ve been elected twice more to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m the only man ever to serve three terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention under the present constitution and bylaws. The only way I was able to do that was by a quirk that says that the President cannot succeed himself more than one time, but the first time I didn’t succeed myself, and then I got reelected, and then I succeeded myself.

So, but come June, thank God there’s no bylaw on earth that will allow me to be renominated. Now, a while back, I got the other four [SBC] presidents who have served after the other three presidents who have served after my election in ’79, and we went to Nashville to the executive building there in Nashville and held a press conference, Jimmy Draper, Bailey Smith, Charles Stanley and myself. Now, Charles Stanley because of illness was not there but he gave approval to the report that we read to the press. I’m going to I’m going to give you a few excerpts from this report because I think this press report this press conference was so very, very important because I felt that the moderate forces have tried to misrepresent what we believe.

The only way that they can possibly win this battle is to misrepresent to our Baptist constituency who we are and what we really believe. I am totally convinced that the great majority of Southern Baptists are old-fashioned, Bible-believing people, even those who don’t live by the Bible. That guy sitting on the bar stool sipping a Bud Light will get in an argument with you if you tell him the Bible is not the Word of God. I’m not saying that his heart is right. I know Southern Baptists at this point. The great, great majority of us are Bible-believing people even those who don’t even live by it. You understand what I’m saying not that they don’t they, they probably don’t know who came first Abraham or Moses, but you just say you believe the Bible is the Word of God. They say yeah, that’s who we are. That’s just who we are. Now, if the problem in the Southern Baptist Convention were out in the crystal-clear sunlight in my estimation it would be over in a skinny minute. But the problem is that we cannot get the facts out to the people because of the great desire to distort and manipulate, as I’m going to show to you in a moment, on the parts of the moderates to keep the facts from trickling down to Mr. Average and Mrs. Average, Southern Baptist.

        So, that is one of the reasons I said to my fellow [SBC] Presidents who have served as Presidents since I served, “Let’s have a press conference, and let’s state clearly and plainly who we are and what we believe rather than letting somebody else say who we are and what we believe.” So, we held this press conference on February the 24th.

Now, it was a long press conference, So I’m going to compress it all right. I, In my preamble and just off the top of my head and the bottom of my heart, said what the issue is not even before I read the statement. And I said, first of all, the issue is not J. Frank Norris fundamentalism. Okay, I felt the way I feel about the Bible when I got saved and I never had heard of J. Frank Norris. I was a pastor, believing what I believe, before I had ever heard of J. Frank Norris, who was a man who fought Southern Baptists out in Texas in another generation. He was a very brilliant man and a great preacher. But I don’t think that all of us or any of us would agree with all of his conclusions. But we are often tagged with J. Frank Norris’ fundamentalism. Okay, and I said it is not that.

Now, I also said the problem and the concern of the conservatives is not “new right” secular politics. They’re trying to lay that label on us, that we are part of some new right political secular agenda. Now, there may be some in our camp who certainly have strong political opinions. I have some very strong opinions, but there’s some who are on the other side who may have the same political opinions. That is not the matter. All right, and we also said that the issue is not some particular interpretation of Scripture. For example, it is not eschatology. A professor at Southwestern Seminary stood up and said that the problem in the Southern Baptist Convention is eschatological that we’re trying to force dispensational premillennialism on people and he called that a cult. In a succeeding statement, Dr. Dilday [president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Semianry] called dispensational premillennialism a heresy.

Well, none of us are trying to make dispensational premillennialists out of people as a part of an agenda. To me, premillennialism is an opportunity for fellowship, but not a basis for fellowship. Our basis for fellowship is Jesus Christ in the Word of God. The Psalmist said, “I am a companion of them that fear thee.” But it is passing strange to me that a president of a seminary could call dispensational premillennialism a heresy, and yet cry out against creedalism, “How can you have a heretic unless you have a creed?”

But they’re trying to make this an issue or the issue when it is not an issue. It’s a red herring drawn across the trail. Again, I said in the preamble this, we’re not trying to force our views on someone else. We couldn’t if we would and wouldn’t if we could. As I’ve told you, we believe in your right to believe what you want and my right to believe what I want. Anybody who says we’re trying to force our views on someone else is either dishonest or ignorant. All right? Again, the matter is not an anti-women’s movement. We’ve been caricatured as being anti-women. I can guarantee you that’s not true.

We’re not anti-women. We’re for women. We believe in the ministry of women. We believe in the giftedness of women. We believe that in Christ there’s neither male nor female, but we do believe that equality of worth is not sameness of function. I want to say this, that folks we would not be in a discussion over the women’s issue if we were not in a battle over these other things. Proof all the other denominations are in the same kind of a battle over the women’s issue but they’re not having the battle that we’re having in the Southern Baptist Convention. We would be having that battle anyway all right. That is not the major issue. The issue is not some, let me go back and give a subheading of the political thing, it is not state mandated prayer. Often, we have this hung on us and I’m going to show you in a moment.

Dr. Winford Moore [Texas Baptist pastor] says that we are trying to force everybody to go to school and pray a government-written prayer. That, my friend, is absolutely, patently absurd. We are not. I believe in the freedom of speech, and therefore I believe that any red -blooded American can pray anywhere, anytime, anyplace, verbally, and vocally pray unless he’s disturbing the peace or the class or whatever by doing so.

We’re not trying to force somebody. I’m as much against somebody writing out a prayer for you to pray as I would for someone writing out a prayer for me to pray or any of my children to pray. And they know that. But they’re trying to say that we are for state-mandated prayer. We’re not for state -mandated prayer. We’re for the freedom to pray. Somebody says, “Well, if you do that, the Mormons will pray. The Buddhists will pray. Let them pray.” Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Go ahead and pray. God that answers by fire, let him be God.” Great danger is not that the pagans pray it’s that God’s people don’t. I’m not afraid of a prayer contest.

Sure, in America, let people pray. Just don’t… excuse me, I’m supposed to talk. All right, all right. So, let me, let me tell you what…. That’s the difference between preaching and teaching, in preaching, you yell more. All right, let me give you this conservative Southern Baptist affirmation then. This is what the presidents read to the press, by the way, it never was fully reported in the press.

A Conservative Southern Baptist Affirmation.

  One unfortunate aspect of controversy is the inadvertent misunderstanding that frequently develops in the vortex of discussion. The brief statement of affirmation’s prayerful desires and goals which follows is an attempt to clarify the position of the past four presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention. While we recognize that we cannot speak for others, much consultation leads us to believe that this statement is representative of the heartbeat of most conservative Southern Baptists.

While the statement is neither definitive nor exhaustive, our prayer to God is that it will serve to clarify to the minds of all Southern Baptists that which we have been attempting to say over the past 10 years. As leaders elected by the denomination, the key to the whole thing is that we should not and could not appoint anyone to positions of leadership who does not embrace the essentials outlined herein. We wish also to express in the strongest possible terms our unabated love for and devotion to our beloved Southern Baptist Convention of cooperating Christian’s laboring together to present the Gospel to every soul until Christ returns. God bless you, everyone.

And then here is the statement. Now I’m going to give you the statement in shorthand because it is a long statement and it would take me 20 minutes just to read it. But there are first of all ten affirmations.

Affirmation one, we affirm the Baptist’s right to set parameters for the institutions and agencies which are supported by Baptists and agree with the Baptist Faith and Message as adopted in the Southern Baptist Convention session in Kansas City 1963. Now what we’re saying is that Baptists have a right to set parameters for those who draw salaries from them. All right.

Two, we agree with and affirm article one the Scriptures as interpreted by Dr. Herschel Hobbs’ testimony before the Southern Baptist Convention meetings in Houston 1979, Los Angeles 1981, respectively, as meaning the inerrancy of the original autographs.

We understand with Dr. Hobbs the Scriptures having God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter as being a synonymous phrase for inerrancy. Now, we’re quoting Dr. Hobbs, who chaired that committee. We further affirm the Glorietta Statement of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President, which statement I’ll say more about later, that the Bible is not errant in any area of reality. 

Now, three, we affirm evangelism as the attempt in every way possible to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone in the world. We say some more about each of these, but I’m going to just give you the topic sentences more or less.

Four, we affirm the cooperative method of world missions is biblically based.

  Five, we affirm the autonomy of the local church as expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message statement.

Six, we affirm the separation of the institution of the church and the institution of the state.

Seven, we believe in the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention as they understand and comply with the beliefs enunciated above.

Eight, we believe in the priesthood of every true believer and the competency of each individual to know and experience God for himself, the absolute freedom of religion for all people.

  Nine, we affirm that this cherished belief of the priesthood of the believer, of the priesthood of the believer, guarantees access of all men to God through the blood of Christ appropriated by faith.

Ten, we affirm that Jesus Christ the virgin born God-Man is the center of all faith.

Now those are the ten affirmations. In almost every one of these affirmations, we have been caricatured as being accused of not believing. Okay? Now you say, “Why did you say that? Can’t people just take that for granted? I wish they could.” But we just figured we had to say, “This is what we believe.”

  We do believe, for example, in the priesthood of the believer. We do believe in cooperative missions and so forth. All right, now, then next comes some prayerful desires. And here are prayerful desires.

One, our prayerful desire is for the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention to work and teach in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message, especially concerning the article on the Scriptures.

Two, our further prayerful desire is that nothing will ever be done intentionally in or by the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention to shake anyone’s confidence in the full reliability and infallibility of the Bible. 

Three, our further prayerful desire is that the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention recognize local church autonomy in fact, as well as in theory. I want to tell you gentlemen that the highest level of Southern Baptist work is not any agency or institution of the Southern Baptist Convention, it is the local Baptist church. These institutions and agencies exist to serve, to help the churches in their job. All right? 

Four, our prayerful desire is to encourage the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention as they take every positive step to emphasize and prepare every possible part of our convention for the task of worldwide evangelism.

Five, our further prayerful desire is for fair and balanced treatment in the denominational press. Press. That’s very important.

Six, finally, our prayerful desire is that those who represent Southern Baptist on the boards and institutions and agencies be selected from among those who affirm Article 1, the Baptist Faith and Message, as set out above. And then I mentioned five goals.

1. Our goal is to have our prayerful desires as enumerated above come to realization.

2. Our goal is to be cooperative with the institutions and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention without being forced to support what we consider to be unconscionable.

3. Our goal is to make Southern Baptist ever more aware of the dangers of neo-orthodoxy liberalism and the misuse of the historical-critical method to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith and to worldwide mission outreach.

4. Our goal is for the Southern Baptist Convention’s institutions, agencies, churches, and people to be used and blessed of God to lead a nationwide revival and spiritual awakening.

5. Our goal is for the foreign and home mission efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention to be used and blessed by God to lead a worldwide expansion of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ through spiritual awakening and revival.

Now, gentlemen, that’s basically the statement. That is the statement, not all of the statement, but that’s the bones of the statement. Would you believe that there were a great antipathy and reaction of negativism toward that statement? That’s an amazing thing to me, but there was.

Some call that statement divisive, and Dr. Lloyd Elder [SBC denominational leader] said he was greatly disappointed in that statement. Russell Dilday [president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary] had a statement from him on this statement, how disappointed he was in this statement. But I felt that we needed to say who we were, what we desire, rather than letting someone else say who we are and what we desire. Now, let me tell you what some others are saying that we are and what we desire.

Recently, Dr. Winford Moore, who is the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Amarillo, Texas, who was nominated at the same time I was nominated to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was nominated by Richard Jackson in Atlanta, Georgia in 1986 to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was nominated by Richard Jackson [prominent SBC pastor], and this is a loose quote because I don’t have the quote before me, but I think I can remember it fairly accurately. He was nominated as a man who believes the truth, tells the truth, and above all, as a man who lives the truth, to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

He was not elected. I was elected. I’ve served with Winfred Moore on the Southern Baptist Peace Committee, which I may say some more about later on. But now, Dr. Winfred Moore has mailed material to most Southern Baptist pastors, maybe you’ve received one of these if you’re a pastor. As anyone received, all right, you’ve received them, some of you have received them, who are pastors, who received a brochure stating who we are and what we believe.

Now what they have tried to do is to niche out particularly Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson to somehow make them the whipping boys and the lightning rods, to somehow say some things about them that would be repugnant to other Southern Baptists and therefore make it incumbent upon all of us to go and to vote against these people. As I told it in the press conference, I said the issue is not Page and Paul. With me, it’s the written page in the Apostle Paul. But they want to try to make the issue something that it is not.

Now, Bill Moyers [member of the press], who at one time was like you, a Southern Baptist preacher, became press secretary for Lyndon Johnson, then became a politico and a commentator, many of you heard Bill Moyers.

He does not now attend a Southern Baptist church, attends a very liberal church, yet had a special Public Broadcasting Network show in which he attempted to probe into the soul of Southern Baptists and to show how we have somehow taken over the convention and have become some sort of Machiavellian monsters.

And as a result of that, Winford Moore or whomever wrote this for him picked up on it and tried to say who we are. Now I’ve tried to say who we are and what we believe but now here’s what they say that we are.

The struggle for the Baptist soul, Moyers carefully revealed how a small group of fundamentalists led by Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson planned and captured the Southern Baptist Convention.

Well, if I believed that a small group of people could capture the Southern Baptist Convention, I’d be deathly afraid of those people. I’d give them credit for sinking the Titanic. It’s absolutely absurd to say that the Baptist mind can be so captured. I’ll tell you what Paul Pressler did. Paul Pressler showed people, and I’m going to discuss this in a moment, how the infrastructure of the Southern Baptist Convention works, and if you wanted to change it, how you would change it. He showed people how to do what they already wanted to do but didn’t know how to do it. That’s the secret. If they had not wanted to do it, Paul Pressler would have had no influence whatsoever. But he showed people to do what they wanted to do but did not know how to get their hands on.

I have gone to Southern Baptist Conventions and seen some country preacher stand up with tears in his eyes and he’d have some Sunday School quarterly or some statement from a professor and he’d say, “Folks, this ain’t right, and my people sent me to this here convention to say that we ought to do something about it and I move that whoever wrote this be fired.” 

And the [convention] president would say, “My brother, you’re out of order.” And he’d sit down, humiliated. My heart would go out to him. He’d feel like he’d made a sheer fool of himself because it took so much courage to get up there to begin with. And he said, “How do I get my hands on this thing? “Where? How? Do you do it?” Pressler said, “Here’s how to do it.” They said, “Aha! You’ve given us a handle.” That’s where my dear friend Paul Pressler did something that we all basically know how to do now, but we didn’t know before. But don’t give him credit for capturing a convention. Give him credit for just simply explaining something to people who were looking for an explanation.

Two, he says, this group is directly linked to political extremists. This group discounts some of Baptist’s most important beliefs, including the priesthood of the believer and the separation of church and state. That, my friend, is a lie. This group forces out loyal Southern Baptists from denominational agencies and institutions and replaces them with their zealots.

Now on the inside of this, now this is mailed to 30,000 Southern Baptists. Here is the topic, “Ties to Scary Cult.” Well -meaning people being deceived. The P[ressler]-P[atterson] political group is linked to other strange, extremist political groups. In the battle for the Bible, Pressler broke off the interview with Moyers when Moyers asked him about his political connections with Coors Beer President Joseph Coors. In fact, both Pressler and Patterson have joined Coors in several political efforts.

That would be very similar to saying that if Dr. [Gray] Allison [MABTS president] over here voted for Dick Hackett to be mayor and somebody who ran a restaurant that sold beer voted for Mr. Hackett to be mayor that these two are linked together in some political scheme. This is McCarthyism at its worst. Now it says here that our group, the group I represent, is tied to scary cults. And the cult that they’re talking about It’s the Reconstructionist movement. 

Now I don’t know how familiar you are here with Reconstructionism, but as I understand it, it is basically people who believe that the Old Testament laws, theonomy, or the rule of God ought to be applied to modern governments and so forth. Well, they have their right to believe that. I particularly do not believe that, at least I’m going to restate it before I say what I believe because I’m not certain all that they believe. But here is here is what they say that we believe listen to it what are some of the chilling views of the Reconstructionist cult now notice first of all they say we’re tied to that cult what are some of the chilling views they want to do away with the United States Constitution and base our society on Old Testament law.

Now, can you imagine saying that an appeal court’s judge wants to do away with the Constitution? He’s sworn to uphold the Constitution. I mean, if he were not a Christian, in my estimation, that’d be grounds for a lawsuit. That’s liable to say that a man wants to do away with the United States Constitution.

Two, enforce the death penalty for at least 15 crimes, including adultery and blasphemy, enforce the death penalty for a rebellious child. That’s not a bad idea. [laughter] Replace our present form of currency with gold and silver. Limit all debts to six years. Abolish all government-run schools. Now, this would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. Can you imagine their interpretation of the Bible is the only true one, and they call anybody who disagrees with them a liberal. The issue is not over interpretation of Scripture. It is what Scripture is. What Scripture is, is the safety net beneath us, so we can’t argue about interpretation.

You have professors on your faculty here who interpret different passages of Scripture different ways, isn’t that true? Sure, you do and we have students here who some of you interpret the Bible different than me and that’s all right. It’s America you’ve got a right to be wrong it’s. It’s not interpretation different than I should say. All right now and they will sacrifice our denomination if they have to get their way. Listen to this.

If the Paul Pressler or the PP group has its way, your children or grandchildren will be made to pray in school, even if it is a Mormon or a Buddhist prayer, or whatever the government decides. If we have our way, folks, Mormons are going to be leading your grandchildren in prayer. I mean, that’s if we have our way.

That to me is pathetic, I mean that is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. But now this is being mailed out at great expense to Baptists, and the sad thing is that some people will pick that up read it and believe it, but I believe it’s going to be very counterproductive, myself. I’m just hoping that Baptists are smarter than that. I believe they will be.

The Peace Committee

Now, Southern Baptists in 1985 formed a Peace Committee. This Peace Committee, it wasn’t called a peace committee, but a committee to investigate the sources of the problem in the Southern Baptist Convention and make recommendations for peace. Hence, it got the Peace Committee.

The Baptist Faith and Message Statement was to be used as the basis of our deliberations and discussion. The Baptist Faith and Message Statement, drawn primarily from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, affirmed in 1925, along with the Cooperative Program, and revised in 1963 with Dr. Herschel Hobbs as chairman was to be the basis of our work.

I was asked to be on the Peace Committee. Twenty-two Southern Baptists were asked to be on the Peace Committee. On that Peace Committee, they had some that were on the far left, some on the far right, and some who were centrists. There was a real ecology in the forming of this committee. They wanted to have just the right ecological balance of theological ecology. They asked me to serve on it. I said I will not serve on that committee unless you have the very best heavy weights from the other side of the aisle.

Put the best on there. Put the most articulate on there. And they did put people on there like Dr. Bill Hull, who didn’t just fall off a load of pumpkins, he was the former dean of theology at Southern Seminary, now provost at Samford, and at that particular time, pastor of a Southern Baptist church. They put Cecil Sherman on there, who’s one of the most philosophically hardwired moderates. That was a good way to describe it.

So, these kinds of people were on there. Then they put the denominationalists on, like Winford Moore and others on there, and some, like myself, and Jerry Vines, and Ed Young and so forth. I’ll tell you, it’s been interesting being on the Peace Committee. I mean, if it’s not interesting to you, you’re deaf, dumb, and dead.

It was interesting. Man, the dynamism, because you had all of the problems in the Southern Baptist Convention distilled and then locked in a room. And it’s very interesting. But do you know what happened when it was all over? The moderates said it was a fundamentalistic or fundamentalist committee. Do you know why? The thing got tilted and it never got back. It started with a level table, but the table got tilted. Do you know why the table got tilted? There were two men who came over on the conservative side. One was Mr. Fact and the other was Mr. Truth.

Now facts and truth are not always the same. Facts may double; truth never will. If it’s new, it ain’t true. But facts change. Both the facts and the truth are on our side. And because the facts and the truth, the truth, I’m talking about theological truth, and then I’m talking about denominational facts, both happened to be on one side, so the thing got tilted. Don’t get the idea that the conservatives out argued the moderates on the issues. They did not. As a matter of fact, most of them probably are more intellectual than we. But we just simply had the facts and the truth on our side. Don’t get the idea that the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention are out maneuvering the moderates. They are not.

You know why we have won? There are just more of us. Just more of us? Who wanted a certain way. That’s the reason why. That’s who Baptist are. When you get the facts out most of the people are going to vote that way. That’s just simply the way it is, so on the Peace Committee the thing got tilted our way. What it was is just certain things came to the surface. Now the big question is, I mean the big question in theology is what? Did God make man or man make God? Everything else just goes from one side to the other. That’s the continental divide. That’s the big question in life. That’s just, that’s it.

In the Southern Baptist controversy, the big question is, is it political or theological? That’s a big question. I mean let all the air out of it. Is this a political takeover or has there been a theological problem that we’re trying to solve? I mean let all the air out of it. That’s it. Well, the first thing out of the chute all 22 members of the Peace Committee said the problem is theological: that’s the infection the political part is the fever. Okay, but the infection it is theological at its core Even those who did not agree with conservative theology said still the conservatives are concerned about theology. That’s their motivation It’s theological and the theological issue primarily is the Word of God. So, we spent our first part of the Peace Committee talking theology, investigating, going around to various schools. For example, I said in the office of a president of one of our seminaries, and I said, “Sir, do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people?” He said, “Yes.” Well, that surprised me because all I’d heard of him, he didn’t believe Adam and Eve were real people. He said, “Yes.” Well, I said, “Boy, that’s interesting. I’ve been misinformed.” Somebody lied to me or else he’s lying to me right now, so after a while I came back. I said now wait a minute, I want to ask you again question. You said you believe Adam and Eve are real people do you believe there was a man Adam and a woman Eve who was the mother of us all?  He said, “What do you mean by that?” I said a man, a woman, Adam and Eve. He said, “No, I don’t believe that.”

Now friend, he just said he did believe it. If I had not asked the second time and rephrased the question, it’s like trying to hem up a snake in a barrel of oil. I said, “Well, now, you don’t believe then there was a literal man named Adam and a woman named…” Oh, no. I said, “What do you believe?” He said, “I believe they’re representative people.” I said, “I believe that Adam is representative of man and Eve is representative of woman.” And I said, “Oh. But you don’t believe it literally.” He said, “No.” I said, “Do you have any in your theological faculty here that you know of who believe that Adam and Eve were literal people?” He said, “Not that I know of.” Not one? He said, “No.” 

Now, I said, “Well, if that is true, how do you deal with a passage that says, ‘As in Adam all die, even so in Christ all should be made alive. He said, “Well, every man has his own little private garden of Eden.” Well, I said, “Not my granddaughters. They’ll never do that. I know they’re sinlessly perfect and will remain so all of their lives.” But that’s the idea, that’s the thought.

And I said, “Sir, in my estimation, if Genesis 3 is a myth, John 3 is a farce says a man has to be born again.” But the point I’m making is this, that we went out, we visited these various seminaries, we came back. Dr. Bill Hull wrote a report of the theological views. What did we find theologically? Now remember, this was just the first cursory investigation. We did not interview individual professors but just talked to heads of institutions and with the chairman of the trustees. We said, well, let’s write a summation, a summation of what we found. We wrote this theological summation.

Number one, we have found that there are those in our institutions, agencies, and in some of our churches who do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people.

Number two, who do not believe that the miracles happened as recorded in the Bible but were more like parables. That is, they don’t really believe that Jesus fed the 5,000 or walked on the water.

Number three, we found out that there are those who do not accept that the historical records in the Scripture as given are accurate and may be revised with the findings of modern scholarship. For example, Dr. Roy Beaman [MABTS professor], I wish you’d have been there, because one professor said the battle of Ai or I, as they call it, could not have taken place because archaeological findings proved that it was impossible. So, this professor just simply said, “I’ve got to choose between archaeology and the Bible. I’ll choose archaeology.” So, he just said it didn’t happen so that the historical findings of the Bible the historical narratives of the Bible may not be accurate.

Fourthly, that stated authors of the various books of the Bible may not have written those books for example, Peter most likely did not write the Books of Peter although he calls himself there in that epistle and an eyewitness. It wasn’t an eyewitness. It was a pseudonymous writer or some patron school of theology that wrote that book. 

So that was just the first things that we found and then we had to turn the corner and say let’s look at the political aspects. Now we looked at the theological aspects. Yes. And by the way, I want to say that these are not things that the conservatives blame the moderates with, both moderates and conservatives 100% approve that report. It was written by Dr. Bill Hull [a moderate Southern Baptist].

So don’t think this is something that we tried to slip in. This was both sides of the aisle unanimously agreeing those are the kind of problems. Now when people say we don’t have any problems again, I want to say they are either dishonest or dumb. The problems are there, okay. Now and we said all right let’s look at the political thing the conservatives have been accused of every political excess in the book. We’ve been accused of intimidation vote fraud.

  This is one always gets me, busing messengers. I don’t know what they mean by kissing the girls, but by that. But busing messengers, as if somebody is more holy if he comes on wings rather than wheels. A lot of our little preachers do have to ride buses. A lot of them can’t fly in on big expense accounts, but I said, here’s what we’re going to do. You’re accusing some political manipulation. I want you to give it your best shot. If you know anything that any responsible conservative has done this been illegal or dishonest I want you to tell me and I promise you I’ll be on them like a duck on a Junebug. You show it but I won’t time place and preacher, chapter and verse, you name it.

One man said, “Adrian I don’t accuse you of this, but in the Dallas Convention, one of my friends saw somebody standing in a bus handing out ballots.” I said, “Sir, what did he do?” He said, “He told me about it.” I said, “What did you do?” He said, “I told Lee Porter about it.” And he said, “What did Lee Porter?” I said, “What did Lee Porter do?” He said, “Lee Porter stood up and made a speech to the convention about how terrible this was, and he did that. I remember all the crying with histrionics about this terrible thing that is happening. I said, “Why didn’t your friend go to that person and confront him?” I said, “Secondly, was it a moderate who was passing out ballots or was it conservative?” And I said, “Thirdly, are you certain he was passing out ballots?” He said, “Well, I just know what I was told.” I said, “Sir, who told you, who was your friend? He said, “I can’t tell you.” I said then you had no right to bring it up in this committee.

I want you to go to your friend and I want to see if your friend will attest to what you’ve just said and I want you to bring his name if  you brought it in this committee, we’re not just playing children’s games now we’re dealing with something that is very serious. He said he won’t like it I said you better go do it. So, he came back, and he told who his friend was a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention of years back. And his friend wrote a letter to the Peace Committee. He said, “I saw someone standing on a bus passing out something.” He said, “From where I was, I could not tell for certain whether it was a ballot or not.”

Now, that’s the kind of a thing that we’ve been fighting. But when it came to saying, “Put up, give evidence,” this thing has been investigated. We were not able to find one iota of organized political malfeasance by conservatives: not any, not any. They just simply don’t like us using the system to change the system. I’ll say one last word and then I’m going to stop for questions because this thing is so big, believe me. I could talk for two months because I’m so full of all of this, but what is the system? How does the Southern Baptist Convention work? If you saw problems in your convention, would you want to change it? I hope so.

How would you change it? Would you change it from some method outside the system, or would you use the system? I mean, for example, if you saw a professor in a seminary being paid with Southern Baptist Convention money who’s not representing Southern Baptists, how would you deal with that professor? Would you machine gun him? Would you drop him in acid? What would you do? What would you do? You’d say, well, the best way to do it is to use the system to change the system by the integration the trustees.

How do you get the trustees? They’re elected by the convention. Who nominates them to the convention? The committee on nominations? How do you get a committee on nominations? It is nominated by committee on committees. How do you get a committee on committees? It is appointed by a president. How do you get a president? You elect him.

Baptists have a chance to elect the kind of president they want who just simply pushed the first time. That’s what it’s all about. Just simply saying At the front end of that thing is the Southern Baptist people who say, “We want this kind of a president.” At the rear end of that thing is the Southern Baptist Convention who says, “We elect these kinds of trustees.” And the convention speaks at both ends, “We, the people, speak.”

 Now, the bureaucracy says that’s not fair for “we the people” to speak. It’s the only way I know of for people to change it. If we were a connectional denomination, a hierarchy, I would not be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I would be in ecclesiastical Siberia somewhere. But we’re not a connectional denomination, and that’s the one reason we may turn the Southern Baptist Convention because of the autonomy and the independence of every local Baptist church, which is our hope of salvation as a denomination that the people can still speak.

All right, now I’m going to take a few moments for some questions and you may ask me, yes sir. 

Question 1: Have you done something like this talk in the other seminaries?

No, I have not done this in any of the seminaries and they frankly, that’d go over like a screen door on a submarine.

Question 2: Can you comment on the Glorietta Statement?

Yes, sir.

The Glorietta Statement when we as a Peace Committee said, well, all right, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith was written I think in 1633. Is that right Dr. Beaman? You’ve got to be careful when you’re up here with Dr. Beaman out there. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith spoke of the Bible as saying truth without any mixture of error. The Bible has truth without any mixture of error for its matter. That’s a statement taken from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. That was written before the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation was known. And it just simply meant, in my estimation, what black print means on white paper.

You take the average person, pick that up, and say, “Well, that’s pretty airtight. Truth without of any mixture of error, as it’s matter.” That’s it. But the neo-orthodox interpretation is, it’s for its matter. They believe that the Bible has truth, but not is truth. It contains truth. And you’ve been through all that, so I’m not going to give you a lecture on that. So, we said The Peace Committee said, “That’s where the problem hinges on the interpretation of Article 1 of the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. That’s the crux of the whole matter. That’s the nitty part of the gritty.”

So, ask them, we said, let’s ask the [seminary] presidents, “Are you willing to go back to a prehistorical, critical interpretation of Scripture and take the historical Baptist Faith and Message statement in this common sense that was held when it was first written. Well, either they have to say yes or no. If they said yes, it’s over. If they said no, then their hand is played. Everybody sees that they are saying one thing and meaning another. And by the way, that’s been the problem all the time. They use our words in their dictionary. And boy, that’s so, confusing. Just ask them this question.

Well, they got the jump on us They came to the Glorietta conference and said we’ve not asked anybody about this. We’re going to make a statement. We declare that the Bible is not errant in any area of reality and we will live by that at our schools. I said praise God. I affirm that.

Now, I felt right then that they didn’t mean what they were saying or else didn’t know what they were saying, because that’s stronger than the Baptist Faith and Message statement. Not errant and inerrant are exactly the same or words have no meaning at all and you can’t talk about anything. That is an exact synonym, not errant and inerrant. All right, and then they said in any area of reality, well, is cosmology an area of reality? Is history an area of reality? Is theology an area of reality? Of course. I mean, that covers the base. When you say any area of reality, no mistake in any area. I said, “Well, praise God. Hallelujah.”

When I said, “I liked it,” they all got nervous. Now, when Dr. [Roy] Honeycutt [president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary] And Dr. Randall Lolley [president, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary] went back to their schools, they faced a firestorm because their theological professors said, “You sold the farm.”

And so, they tried to put a new construction on what they meant by that. When they did, the Peace Committee felt betrayed. I felt betrayed. Now you ask a question. Let me show you what Randall Lolley said that he meant by that. And by the way, this is an interview that Randall Lolley gave to the Florida Baptist Witness several weeks ago. Don’t hold your breath until this appears in Baptist Press because it is so damaging to the moderate cause. Now this would have been second-coming headlines if a leading conservative had said something as damaging as what he said to our cause.

All right, let me just–I’m going to quote from you here. “Lolly’s Aborted Plan of Action was based on the Glorietta Statement, a covenant drafted by the presidents of the six Southern Baptist Seminaries and presented to the SBC Peace Committee during its meeting in in New Mexico, October 1986, the statement commits the seminaries to teach that the sixty -six books of the Bible are not errant in any area of reality.

The Florida Baptist Witness reporter asked, what is meant by that phrase? Lolly, “We are not talking about the theological construction of inerrancy. They, the inerrantists, are talking about the original manuscripts of the sixty-six books of the Bible. We are talking about the reliability and integrity of the Bible we have in hand. The phrase ‘not errant’ was an attempt to reach out and show them how close we come to using their catchphrase of inerrancy, but we determined not to use inerrancy but not errant.”

“I’ll bet if you asked all six of us [SBC] presidents, every one of us would have a little different nuance on what we meant when we said not errant. I meant that the 66 books of the Bible do not have a single author by my understanding of them who deliberately and by design tried to mislead a reader in any area of reality. When they were speaking about science, they were speaking about science as they understood science.” [Florida Baptist] Witness, “But you could have non-deliberate error.” Lolly, “Sure.”

Now to me, non-deliberate error is the worst kind. If a man’s making a mistake. I want him to know he made it. But if he makes a mistake, he doesn’t even know he’s made it. I mean, if the doctor says, “I gave you cyanide,” and I’m sorry, I want to take it back, that’s one thing, but if he gave me cyanide and doesn’t know it, I’m dead. Now, the point is that he does is that he believes there are errors in the Scripture, and he says in a cavalier way, “Sure, sure.”

Now, to me, it was patently dishonest for this man to say, “Here is a breakthrough,” when he didn’t mean it a breakthrough at all. We asked,  “When you say not errant in any area of reality, is this slippery language? Are you using this in some highly technical theological sense, or do you mean the plain meaning of words?”

They said we mean the plain meaning of words but folks, later on this thing is percolated to the top. Let me just read also what Dr. Lolley had to say why I think this is so politically damaging. Lolly, “Responsible denominationalism, what does that mean in this time to be related to this denomination? I’m not going to finance Jerry Vine’s type of leadership if I have anything to do with it as a pastor of a local church.” Now Dr. Lolly is no longer seminary president, he’s a pastor you see, [Lolly continues], “and if I have any influence in North Carolina, I’m going to see to it that the state of North Carolina doesn’t do it either.” That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.

And he’s saying, “I’m going to see to it that money is not given if Vines get selected. I’m going to see to it that we in North Carolina do not support.” Witness, “Isn’t that committing the same sin you accuse them of committing?”

Listen to this answer. “Lolly, yes, I think so. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.” Witness, “Are you lowering yourself to play on someone else’s level?” Lolly, “I think probably. The only person I know in human history who has not lowered himself to play on the level of his opposition is the Lord Jesus. It’s reactionary, but this pendulum has necessitated it.”

When I talk about responsible denominationalism, I’d find a way to keep Southern Baptist missionaries on the field, but I’ll be danged if I’m going to send Home Mission Board [now the North American Mission Board] President Larry Lewis any more money to disenfranchise churches that choose to call women as preachers, divorced persons as pastors, or have a pastor who has the gift of speaking in tongues.

That’s the only way I know to send him a signal, just keep the money. Because if you keep sending the money, he’s going to keep assuming that you’re supporting everything he’s into. I want you to know that I give him a right not to support with his money what he doesn’t believe.

But I think this is the ultimate duplicity for them to criticize us for saying we do not want to support with our money that which is unconscionable and then when it becomes unconscionable to them to do it with this attitude. But you’re not talking about abandoning the Cooperative Program of Southern Baptist Convention.

Are you looking for an auxiliary parallel approach? Responsible denominationalism. I don’t know what that means, so don’t ask me to outline it. But I think as a pastor of a Baptist church, that’s my first priority. You can ask me in two years and I’ll show you what, I’ll show you.

But he said he was going to fight with every millibar of his energy to remove the forces that control Southeastern Seminary right now. Lolly said he cannot continue to support business as usual in the SBC as long as fundamental conservatives control the SBC presidency.

He listed five reasons why he cannot support likely presidential candidate Jerry Vines of Jacksonville or other current leaders. First on his list, “Unyielding insistence on inerrancy.” That’s amazing because folks, the Baptist Faith and Message statement is an inerrancy statement. Dr. Hobbs said there’s no doubt about it. That’s what the committee had in mind. And he said all Scriptures given by inspiration of God.

The Greek word “all” means all in every part and he said a God of truth can’t inspire error. And it’s all inspired of God. All right, number two an authoritarian model for pastors. That’s the second reason he can’t support Jerry Vines. You see he doesn’t like the way that Jerry Vines and Homer Lindsay are modeling what it means to be a pastor. Brother, he’s my model. I hope that we have more First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida around our convention.

Three, an opposition to women in ministry. Four, disregard for Baptist tradition of separation of church and state. Five, a pattern of quasi-political connections with the new right. So that’s the reason that he’s not going to send any money.

But wait, what do they mean by that? Well, what they said they meant “not errant in any area of reality” was that we just don’t want to use the word inerrancy. But we’ll say this I said I don’t care what you call it. You can call it “steamboat” as far as I’m concerned as long as you believe in the impeccability the word of God All right. Yes, sir,

Question 3: Where the sessions of the Peace Committee recorded? Are the recordings sealed because of profanity?

Every session of the peace committee was tape recorded They’re sealed for ten years. No, they’re not sealed because of that, but there is some cursing on there.

Yes, You’ll be able to hear the recording if the question is are the are Are they–have all of the Peace Committee discussions been sealed? Yes, they’ve all been sealed. He said, “Are they sealed because of some cursing or vulgarity?” There’s some on there, but that didn’t why they were sealed. They were sealed ahead of time so that there would be the freedom of open discussion. But they were also taped for history.

Question 4: Dr. T. V. Farris asks if the Presidents press release can be printed and mailed out? Is it a possibility that the conservatives will be divided?

All right, let me take let me repeat the question first of all is there a possibility that the conservative, that the four presidents press release can be printed and distributed. Yes, we’re working on that, because that needs to be said. We felt that we need to say who we are and what we believe, not let somebody else say it for us. I’d like to mail it out. Frankly, I think it cost about twenty or thirty thousand dollars to print it and mail it out. I don’t know that we can do that, but I do think we’re going to have some printed for distribution and perhaps when we get the convention pass them out as much as we can with the attendees, because I think that for this, for the present time, that’s where it’ll be most important to have in the hands of those people.

Secondly, I think that Dr. Winford Moore’s thing that was mailed out, it came during the last session of the Peace Committee. I’ve been over last week, sitting for two solid days, listening to the heads of all of our agencies, institutions, and boards come and appear before the Peace Committee to say what they were going to do in response to the Peace Committee report, and right at the end of the day, this piece was delivered to the Peace Committee.

I can tell you that it was received with great chagrin by the moderates. They hung their heads and said, “Why do we always do this to ourselves?” So I hope it’s widely distributed. I really believe it will be one of the most counterproductive things that they’ve done. It is an absolute overkill. Let me tell you why it’s an overkill. Let me tell you how people work. In a court of law, if the law is on your side, you argue the law. If the law is not on your side, but the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, you attack your opponent.

Now, this is just simply an attack of the opponent. And it becomes so obvious that that’s what it is. It does not deal with substance. It deals with overkill, innuendo, and plain distortion. And so that, I think, is going to be very counterproductive. Now, the next question he asks, “Is there a possibility that the conservatives will be divided?” That is not only a possibility, but a grave danger that the conservatives will be divided as I said before if the issue were out in the crystal-clear sunlight, It would be over in a skinny minute.

Dr. Richard Jackson is going to be nominated as president if everything goes according to prognostication. Dr. Jackson is an evangelistic pastor, a very successful pastor and his church has given a great deal of money to the Cooperative Program. So, you say, well, Dr. Jerry Vines is conservative, a great soul-winning church, Dr. Richard Jackson as well, so what’s the difference?

Wouldn’t it be better perhaps to elect a Richard Jackson because maybe we’ll come back to the center, or somehow, we’ll have peace in the convention and get on? That’s the line, that is the most dangerous line. 

I want to say that the choice in San Antonio is not going to be between two persons, but between two philosophies. One philosophy says that we need to continue what was begun. The other philosophy says that we need to stop what was begun. And that’s what makes the choice so difficult if you do not think consistently.

Richard Jackson said to me, “Adrian, I would not appoint anyone who’s not conservative.” I said that’s not the whole issue. Would you appoint someone who would appoint someone who’s not conservative? That’s the issue. The issue is not just conviction; the issue is consistency.

Now, someone will say, “Well, you cannot appoint anyone and tell them what to do after you appoint them.” And I agree. I’ve never tried to tell anyone what to do after I’ve appointed them, but I would not appoint anyone that I felt who himself would appoint someone who did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

If that’s a crime, I’m guilty. Well, you say, what about if Richard Jackson, what kind of appointments would Richard make? Well, let me ask you this question. Who did Richard Jackson nominate to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention? He nominated Winford Moore. Against whom? Adrian Rogers. Now, I don’t say that personally, but I know where I stand philosophically, and I know where Winfred Moore stands philosophically.

When Winfred Moore was faced with the four issues of theological aberration in the Southern Baptist Convention, not believing the historicity of Adam and Eve, not believing the miracles, not believing the stated authors, not believing the historicity of the narratives, what did Winfred Moore say about that? He said it more than one time to me personally and said it in the press. I believe that is a part of our strength. I don’t. I believe that is a part of our weakness. If you believe not believing the miracles is part of Southern Baptist strength, you’ve got room to rent upstairs unfurnished.

Now, friend, listen, that is not strength. That’s weakness. Now, he said, I believe in diversity. I believe in diversity. I believe in doctrinal unity and functional diversity. People have turned that around to where we have now functional unity and doctrinal diversity. That won’t work. You can’t say believe what you want but all support alike. No, you say we’ve got to have as a basis.

They tell us that we are not a doctrinal convention ,that we are missionary convention. That’s ridiculous. Our source of unity is Christ and His Word, not anything else. If there’s any other center, we’re eccentric.

We do what we do, missions, because we are what we are and believe what we believe. If we didn’t believe it, then we wouldn’t do what we do. Our center is theological, not practical. It’s not to say the practical is not important, but that is only important as to the fact that this is solid in the core. So, the point being that if Richard Jackson, who is my beloved friend, and I love him, and I’m talking very plainly now, but if Richard Jackson believes that the Winford Moore philosophy is the best philosophy, then I cannot vote for him. If he, if he could nominate the kind of a fellow who would send out this kind of literature, then regardless of what he may say about his theology, I could not, as much as I love him, vote for him. I’ll reason with him, I’ll pray with him, but that’s the problem and there is a real danger. [For example, take] Dr. T. V. Farris [MABTS professor of Old Testament and Hebrew], that many people will not think that through they say well, “He’s just as conservative as this man and so therefore, we’re going to vote.”  But there is a philosophy now someone says all that’s political to me It’s not political. It’s theological also conviction has to be consistent.

Question 5: How can we be satisfied by adding some conservatives to an existing theological faculty? Are we making progress?

                  Yes, Dr. John Floyd [MABTS professor of missions], Yes, I’ll tell you what it ought to be ought to be really big, but it’s goose egg

Alright, Dr. Floyd has asked one of the most penetrating philosophically difficult questions. The first question is, how can we be satisfied by adding some conservatives to a theologically moderate seminary faculty. For example, Dr. David Dockery, to be specific, he’s not being specific, but I will, Dr. David Dockery [currently president Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary], who was a professor at Criswell College, has recently gone to Southern Seminary to teach on their faculty. Dr. Dockery is a very conservative man who’d be acceptable, I believe teach here or anywhere else.

But at the same faculty, at the same trustee meeting where Dr. Dockery was employed, at the same time, a woman, professor of theology, Dr. Molly Marshall Green, was given tenure. Dr. Green, in my estimation, believes some things that are not compatible with the Baptist Faith and Message statement. Now, the question, are we making progress? No, not in that instance, unless Dr. Dockery is coming on the faculty as part of a plan that will be consistent.

Now, here’s the question, are we seeking balance? Well, it all depends. What kind of balance? If you’re seeking balance on things that are inconsequential or matters of taste or style or interpretations fine. But if you’re seeking balance that’s outside article one of the Baptist Faith and Message statement. That is not fine. You can’t have that.

For example, they speak now of parity. They wouldn’t even speak to us before parity. They used to speak of pluralism. And I asked Dr. Honeycutt, I said, “Dr. Honeycutt, I want to ask you a question. Do you have anyone here on your faculty?” No. I said, “Do you believe that we have any Southern Baptist who believe in verbal plenary inspiration?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Not a few?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “A great many?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Do you have any on your theological faculty who believe in verbal plenary inspiration?” He said, “Not that I know of.” I said, “Where’s all this pluralism we’ve been hearing about?” I mean, you see, they were talking about pluralism. They don’t even have pluralism.

There was a monolithic type of theology that’s being taught there. Now they’re saying that we have ascendancy. They’ve changed the word from pluralism to parity, some of these and some of these. I don’t want parity. I want purity. Now, I mean parity, I think the worst thing could ever happen to us. And that’s behind your question. For example, in my body, suppose I’ve got two good legs. For parity, I got to get one cancerous one. I mean, I got to say, well, both legs are healthy, but now we got to have a little parity. So I get cancer over here, and I got a good leg. Now I’ve got parity. No, I don’t want that. I want purity.

You say you’ll never have purity. Right. I don’t have purity in my own heart, my own life. I don’t have purity in my church. We don’t have purity in this school. But purity is the standard. That’s the standard. It’s the goal toward which you move. I can’t just say, well, since I’m not sinless, sinfulness will be my goal. No, no. Perfection is my goal. Holiness is my goal. I’ve got to have the right goal.

Now, the peace committee set the standard, and the convention adopted it by a 95 % vote that in the future theological faculty would be chosen from those who hold this predominant view of Southern Baptist, and the predominant view of Southern Baptist was that the miracles happen, that Adam and Eve were real people that the history is correct and so forth. Now the crux of the matter is, are these institutions going to abide by that or are they going to say well we’ll give you some of that.

  If it’s just sort of a quid pro quo one of these and one of these that’ll never work. As a matter of fact, that’d be the worst thing could ever happen because some people think that we’re making progress. I have some people say, “Adrien, if we can just get parity, then we’ll get it the rest of the way.” Well, parity may be all right for strategy, but never for gold. Because if what we say is true, that at one time, southern Baptists were conservative and they lost that and became more liberal, there was a time in that retrograde where we had parity.

Did it work? No. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. You don’t catch health. You catch sickness. You can’t get in a room full of healthy people and suddenly get healthy. You get in a room with sick people and get sick. But but you don’t catch health and you don’t make room for germs. Now if somebody says I’m calling people germs and all that. You’re just misinterpreting my rhetoric and changing my illustration. What I am trying to say is that we have to have a standard. Now I want to say this again and forgive me for getting on a soapbox, but I’m often asked, “Adrian, you are trying to force your view of the Bible on everybody else.” I say I am not. I am not.

      So, I was asked this question by an editor a while back. He said you’re just trying to force your views on everybody else. I said I am not. But I said I want to ask you a question Mr. Editor, “Do Southern Baptists have a right to set parameters for those who work for them? Yes or no?”