The Southern Baptist Convention: 175 Years of Turmoil

Christian Leopold (C.L.) Neiger, my only great-grandparent not born in the U.S., was born in Canton Bern, Switzerland, 180 years ago today, on May 30, 1840. Five years later, and sixteen years before C.L. immigrated to the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845.  

The International Mission Board of the SBC was formed
 on the same day as the new convention.

Turmoil at the Beginning

The Southern Baptist Convention was formed because of turmoil over slavery. There were some other issues that also led to the formation of the new convention, but the slavery issue was unquestionably the most decisive one.

Specifically, in response to the policy adopted in 1844 that slaveholders would not be appointed as missionaries, Baptist delegates in the South formed the SBC.

In May 1845, those delegates met in Augusta, Georgia, to form the new Convention. Beginning with a total membership of nearly 352,000 in over 4,100 local Baptist churches, it was geographically restricted to states that would eventually become the Confederacy.

Turmoil through the Years

Most of the turmoil in the SBC after its founding has been theological. One of the first such controversies centered around C.H. Toy, professor of Old Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was forced to resign in 1879.

Fundamentalists, such as those led by J. Frank Norris, the fiery pastor of First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, caused turmoil in the SBC from the 1920s to the early 1950s.

Turmoil in the SBC again emerged after Ralph Elliott, professor of OT at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, published The Message of Genesis in 1961. He was fired the next year.

The “conservative resurgence” of the SBC (aka the “fundamentalist takeover”) began in 1979 and following years of turmoil, the convention made a massive move to the theological—and to the political—right.

And now this year a new movement has started. It is called the Conservative Baptist Network (CBN), and some are calling it a “second conservative resurgence.” It remains to be seen how much turmoil CBN will cause in the coming years.

An Embarrassed Southern Baptist

Not long after C.L. Neiger married my great-grandmother Margaret (Abplanalp) in Indiana, they moved to Worth County in northwest Missouri, the county where I was born about 70 years later.

C.L. and Margaret’s daughter Laura married George Seat, my grandfather. George’s great-grandfather, Littleton Seat, moved from Tennessee to Cooper County, Mo., about 1818. He moved to Worth County with his family in 1844—and died there the next year, the same year that the SBC was founded.

In the eighteenth century the Seat family lived in Virginia—and they owned slaves. According to family stories, two of Littleton’s older brothers were killed by a 13-year-old slave boy in 1786.

When the Seat family moved to near Nashville, Tennessee, about the turn of the century, they likely took some slaves with them, although the three Seat brothers who moved to Missouri before 1820 didn’t seem to have slaves—and it is quite certain that the Seats in Worth County never had any.

Near the beginning of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, I wrote about being an embarrassed Southern Baptist—and  in June 2015 I wrote about being both a proud and ashamed Southern Baptist—but that was because of what the Southern Baptist Convention had become, theologically, after 1980.

My first embarrassment, though, was when I learned why the SBC was formed in the first place. As a boy, I always identified with the North/Union in thinking about the Civil War—and I wasn’t prejudiced against African Americans, for I never saw a Black person in my home county.

The SBC formally apologized to African Americans in 1995 (at the annual convention marking the 150^th anniversary of the SBC’s founding) for the denomination's pro-slavery past. Some charged that that was too little, too late. But I am on the side of those who say, Better late than never.

During all the years I was a Southern Baptist, I disliked the name, which embodies its racist beginnings—and I have been an advocate of a name change since my student days at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s.

After 175 years, surely the time has come for a name change—and after 40 years of turmoil caused by those on the theological right, surely the time has come for a move back toward the theological center.

Problems of Theological Liberalism

Last month I posted an article about the appeal of theological liberalism, based on Chapter Three of my book The Limits of Liberalism, which I am updating and slightly revising this year. This post is about Chapter Four, which sets forth several of my misgivings about theological liberalism.

Preliminary Issues

Before looking at the more serious attitudinal and theological issues, first consider a couple of preliminary matters. The first is the difficulty of finding a position between the extremes.

In ancient Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were the names of two sea monsters situated on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between Sicily and Italy. The fearful monsters were located close enough to each other that they posed an inescapable threat to sailors who sought to pass between them. 

Avoiding Charybdis meant passing too closely to Scylla and vice versa. Accordingly, contemporary Christians are confronted with the challenge of having to pass between the Scylla of theological liberalism and the Charybdis of fundamentalism.

Many have been so intent on escaping Charybdis that they have sailed straight into the jaws of Scylla. But I repeatedly assert that we must always be careful not to flee one extreme only to fall into the opposite extreme. 

A second preliminary issue pertains to liberalism’s intended audience. Liberal theology is primarily espoused by the highly educated, sophisticated segment of society. However, the societal location of a majority of the people in the world is far from the privileged position of most who develop or affirm liberalism.

Attitudinal Issues

Three of the attitudinal problems of liberalism are found in its tendency toward compromise, arrogance, and uncertainty.

In Chapter Five, I suggest that liberals have sometimes been guilty of “throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.” They have tended to keep the generic teachings of Jesus and the Bible about doing good and being nice, while rejecting the traditional emphases on the uniqueness and the significance of Christ and the Bible.

Further, the liberals’ rejection of fundamentalism has often led to a sense of superiority. But whenever we belittle others and criticize their religious views because of our own “superior” position, is that not a form of arrogance?

Then, in fleeing the “monster” of fundamentalism, which often expresses absolute certainty, many are swallowed by the “monster” of liberalism, which tends to eschew certainty and even in some cases to glory in uncertainty.

The certainty of the fundamentalist can, and often does, lead to a form of arrogance on that side of the spectrum, but the lack of certainty—or of strong conviction about core theological beliefs—is a weakness in those who come down on the other side of that spectrum.

Theological Issues

Specific theological issues are dealt with in the subsequent chapters of my book, but this section of Chapter Four begins with a discussion of the problem of the starting point. Which comes first, revelation or reason?

In traditional and neo-orthodox theology, God’s initiative in revealing Godself to humans is the starting point for knowing God. In liberal theology, even if there is a recognition of revelation (which there may not be), it is secondary to human reason and experience.

The proclivity to place too much weight on human reason and too little on God’s revelation is a major problem of theological liberalism.

In addition, there is the problem of liberalism’s excessive optimism and tolerance, which I won’t elaborate further here.

Finally, of prime importance is the matter of truth. Within liberalism there is a strong tendency to slide into a relativism which, to quote Lesslie Newbigin, “is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me.’”

The problem of liberalism is seen more in what it denies than in what it affirms. Moreover, the limits of liberalism are found in that what it says is often true enough, but it falls short by not acknowledging all of the truth.

Faith, Politics, and the Common Good

Robb Ryerse is an interesting guy, and I am pleased to introduce him and his book that was published earlier this year under the title Running for Our Lives: A Story of Faith, Politics, and the Common Good.

Meet Robb Ryerse

Some of you may have heard of Ryerse: he has had two articles published in Time magazine this year. The first (dated 1/31/20) is titled “I'm a Pastor Who Ran for Congress as a Republican. Here's Why I'm Encouraging My Fellow Evangelicals Not to Vote for Donald Trump.”

Just two weeks later, Time published his next opinion piece, “I Questioned the Sincerity of Donald Trump’s Pro-Life Stance. The Response From My Fellow Evangelicals Was Troubling.”

Time introduced both articles with these words: “Robb Ryerse is a pastor at Vintage Fellowship in Fayetteville, AR and the political director of Vote Common Good.” And they give the title of his new book, which is about his 2018 congressional campaign.

Ryerse was born in Ohio in 1975. He graduated from a conservative seminary in Pennsylvania and he was the pastor of traditional, fundamentalist churches for ten years before having a crisis of faith and then starting the new “post-denominational” church in 2006.

(Here is the link to the introduction of Robb on Vintage Fellowship’s website.)

His first book, Fundamorphosis: How I Left Fundamentalism But Didn’t Lose My Faith (2012), tells the story of his theological transformation. His new book tells how he ran in, and decisively lost, the 2018 Republican primary seeking to unseat incumbent Steve Womack for the Third House District in northwest Arkansas. 

Hear Robb Ryerse

Ryerse’s book is fairly brief and not particularly profound. But it is the intriguing story of a Republican and a former evangelical Christian running for political office—and now actively campaigning against DJT.

I encourage you to read Robb’s book—or at least to click here and read my brief summary of and quotes from his book.

As one who has had a hard time finding much to agree with in most Republican politicians since Senators Mark Hatfield and John Danforth, I found it refreshing to listen to the honest reflections of one who continues to claim he is a Republican—although he is much different from most Republicans in Congress now.

While most of the book is basically about Ryerse’s experience of deciding about, training for, and actually making a spirited run for Congress—and then losing badly—the last four chapters look toward the future and are about seeking the common good in voting.

Please listen to Robb’s 40-second YouTube statement about seeking the common good.

Heed Robb Ryerse

Ryerse is not running for another political office at this point, but he is still actively working in politics. Since the fall of 2018 he has been employed by Vote Common Good, the organization I posted a blog article about in October 2018.

In his book, Robb asserts,

Letting the common good motivate our Election Day decisions means voting for the candidates who are advocating for policies that will do the most good and have the greatest positive impact. . . .
     The common good should especially be the motivation for Christian voters (p. 131).

These are good and important words that I sincerely hope all you readers will heed.

*****

I was sent a free copy of Ryerse’s book by Mike Morrell of Speakeasy on condition that I would post a review or blog article about it. I was happy to receive, to read, and now to post this article and to recommend the book, which was definitely a profitable read.

A Tribute to My Father-in-Law

Louis Andrew Tinsley was born 110 years ago this week, on May 11, 1910. There are few people who do not have some connection with the Missouri counties of Hickory or Polk who ever met or knew about him. But he was June’s father and I am happy to offer this tribute in his honor.

The Tinsley Family

According to the genealogical records June and I have found, the Tinsley family in the U.S. are descendants of Thomas Tinsley, who was born in Yorkshire, England, in 1618.

Thomas immigrated to Virginia with his new wife in 1638. Two years later, Thomas S. was born. The latter’s great-grandson was William Thomas Tinsley, and even though he was not born until 1763, he was drafted twice for service in the Revolutionary War.

Before the turn of the century, William moved to Kentucky, and his grandson Jeptha was born there in 1831. Around 1870 Jeptha and his family moved to Missouri where he lived until his death in 1912, two years after his great-grandson Louis was born in Hickory County.

The Hardships of Louis Tinsley

June’s father Louis had a challenging life in many ways. His mother died when he was only ten, and his father seems to have been a stern man who expected too much out of his older son (Louis). Then during his boyhood years, Louis was struck with polio, which left him with a twisted foot and a limp.

Probably encouraged by his father to do so, Louis dropped out of high school after a couple of years, and then when he was in his early 20s the Great Depression began. In 1933 he joined the newly established Civilian Conservation Corps for a regular six-month term.

Just before Christmas that year, Louis married June’s mother, and they began to eke out a living on a rented farm in Polk County. But 1934 was one of the worst of the Dust Bowl years, so it was a tough time for farmers in southwest Missouri.

By the time I met Louis in the fall of 1955, his health was already declining, and by early 1957 he was diagnosed with cancer. He was able, though, to escort June down the aisle at our wedding in May 1957, but then he died less than six months later.

I am still sad that he was never able to know any of his grandchildren, nor they him. 

June and her father (5/26/1957)

In Tribute to Louis Tinsley

Despite the hardships, my father-in-law did remarkably well. By 1944 he and June’s mother were able to purchase their own farm for their family of five.

Louis had a knack for working on farm machinery and cars, often helping neighbors out with theirs. He also studied “how-to” books and bought the necessary supplies to wire their farmhouse for electricity and later to install indoor plumbing.

Louis had an inquisitive mind, and would often stay up nights reading the books that June’s mother, a schoolteacher, and the three children would bring home from school. He also read through the World Book Encyclopedia.

More importantly, from what I learned and observed about him, Louis Tinsley was a man of basic honesty and integrity. Because of his sense of honesty and integrity, he habitually disapproved of pretentiousness and hypocrisy.

Louis became a Christian in his early 20s and was a member of Rondo Baptist Church in Polk County from 1934 until his death. Although he was not always an active churchman, he did help construct the new church building where June and I became the second couple to be married in it.

As a teenager, June did not always appreciate her father, but perhaps to a significant degree she has him to thank for her own unpretentiousness and honesty, attributes I like about her—and appreciated in my father-in-law.

Thank God for Nurses!

The recently maligned (by DJT) World Health Organization has designated 2020 as “Year of the Nurse,” marking 200 years since the birth of Florence Nightingale (FN). This post is my third this year about an outstanding woman born in 1820, the other two being Susan B. Anthony and Fanny Crosby.  

Learning about FN

In preparation for writing this article, I read Florence Nightingale the Angel of the Crimea, first published in 1909. The author of that old book is Laura E. Richards, whose mother was Julia Ward Howe.

Julia, who is best known for writing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,’ was born less than a year before FN and died just over two months after FN died 110 years ago in August 1910—and the two women knew each other to some degree. I was unable to find out whether Laura (1850~1943) also knew Florence personally.

According to Laura, it was her father, Samuel G. Howe, who in 1843 encouraged Florence to enter nursing at a time when, except for the Catholic Sisters of Charity, nurses in England “were for the most part coarse and ignorant women, often cruel, often intemperate” (p. 35).

Laura’s book, said to be “a story for young people,” was certainly a hagiographical account of Nightingale, but I much enjoyed reading it. Nearly three-fourths of the book is about FN’s meritorious work during the Crimean War (1854~56). 

The Influence of FN

Florence felt God’s call to service of others in 1837 when she was 17 years old, and then she became a nursing student in 1844. After several years of courtship, in 1849 she declined a marriage proposal. Four years later she became the superintendent of the Institution for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in London.

In the spring of 1854, Britain and France joined Turkey in opposition to Russia in what became known as the Crimean War. In the fall of that year, Florence went with a party of 38 nurses to work in a hospital in Scutari, Turkey, where thousands of injured soldiers were being cared for—and where a large percentage of them were dying.

When Florence and the other nurses arrived in Scutari, they were not welcomed. According to Richards, “the military authorities did not want female nurses,” because as mentioned earlier, nurses at that time were “often drunken, generally unfeeling, and always ignorant” (p. 52).

But Florence began to implement significant changes. One of the patients there when she arrived wrote, “Everything changed for the better.”

According to an essay about Florence’s legacy, because of her work in Scutari and her subsequent teaching, FN “will forever be linked with modern nursing—and rightly so.”

The same essay says that three areas of contemporary medicine were “deeply influenced by her.” Those three were hospital infection control, hospital epidemiology, and hospice medicine.

Following in the Footsteps of FN

After retiring as a teacher/administrator in Japan and moving to the Kansas City area in 2005, I had the privilege of teaching a required theology course at Rockhurst University from 2006 to 2015. My classes in sixteen of those seventeen semesters were in the evening, and a majority of my students were in the nursing program.

With few exceptions, those nursing students were serious, hard-working students, and I wonder now how they are faring as practicing nurses during the current pandemic. I am quite confident that many of my former students are a part of the dedicated core of nurses ministering to covid-19 patients across the country.

I hope they all are all right, but some might not be. According to a recent report by the National Nursing Associations (see the reference in this article), at least 90,000 healthcare workers have been infected with covid-19 and more than 260 nurses have died.

The nursing students I taught (and all dedicated nurses) are following in the footsteps of Florence Nightingale, and I write this to honor them (and all nurses) this week, which is National Nurses Week. This special week begins each year on May 6 and ends on May 12, FN’s birthday.

Thank God for Florence Nightingale, and thank God for nurses!

Did Your Church Open Sunday?

Although you may not have heard about it, Sunday (May 3) was ReOpen Church Sunday. Did your church open? Mine didn’t either. But should they have? Is religious liberty being attacked by the federal and state governments? That is what some Christians are charging.

There are at least three important issues that intersect in the discussion about when to reopen in-person church services: (1) religious freedom, (2) local church finances, and (3) public health. 

Baptist Church in Des Moines, Iowa, on May 3

The ReOpen Church Sunday Initiative

Liberty Counsel is a conservative Christian law group that promoted May 3 as ReOpen Church Sunday. That organization was founded in 1989 by Mathew D. (Mat) Staver, who was the dean of the law school at Liberty University from 2006 to 2014.

I first learned about Staver in 2005 when talking with people from Kentucky who had bussed to D.C. to protest the removal of the Ten Commandments in public places. They did that in front of the Supreme Court Building, and I wrote about that in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2020 ed., pp. 123-4).

In the days leading up to May 3, Staver and Liberty Counsel had promoted ReOpen Church Sunday, and more information about that can be found on their website.

For Staver and his supporters, the issue is primarily one of religious freedom. They claim that government agencies prohibiting churches from meeting for worship services, even during the current pandemic, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Church Finances Issue

Despite stay-at-home orders, some churches have defied those directives and held public meetings anyway. Some did that because of their strong belief that they had the right and the need to conduct public worship.

Although usually not said, no doubt many of those churches were inclined to go against the grain for fear of losing financial support. And, in fact, a large majority of churches have seen a  marked decline in offerings and are suffering because of that.

(Without fail, we who are church members need to send our tithes and offerings to our churches even when they cannot conduct public worship.)

Already on April 24, an article in The Washington Post was titled “Church donations have plunged because of the coronavirus. Some churches won’t survive.” Four days later, ReligiousNews.com reported that more than $400,000 had already been raised for small churches at risk during covid-19.

The Churches Helping Churches Initiative relief fund was launched about a month ago, and by last Wednesday had received more than 1,000 applications.

The Public Health Issue

As a strong advocate of religious liberty and an ardent supporter of local churches, I sympathize with those who wanted to open their churches on May 3—or before. But I am also a strong supporter of the government seeking to protect the life and health of the citizens of the country.

I see no indication that churches (or synagogues or mosques) have been unfairly signaled out for mistreatment, although there were a few questionable actions by some local agencies.

I also see considerable indication that many governors and mayors have acted decisively to restrict public meetings in order to keep people safe during the pandemic.

Some have charged that the caution has been excessive. But how can people say that with a straight face when already there have been 70,000 covid-19 deaths in the U.S.?

What about May 10?

In Missouri where I live, Governor Parson’s March 21 order banning gatherings of more than 10 people expired yesterday (May 4). That means that, among other things, events in large venues and stadiums, including churches, will now be able to open with some restrictions.

Many churches in Missouri and elsewhere, it seems, will again have public worship on May 10, which is Mother’s Day. I hope and pray that that will not mean the deaths of an increased number of mothers, and others, because of opening churches too soon.