Perhaps my
interest in public affairs and politics came through my Taylor ancestry, whether or not I inherited my
appearance therefrom. I’m not an
activist, however, as were some of the distant Taylor relatives listed in the
preceding segment, which list included (1) Richard, an officer in the American
Revolution, (2) Zachary, the General/President, and (3) President Zachary’s son
Richard, a general in the Confederate army (who was perhaps better known in the
Confederacy, both before and after the Civil War, than was his presidential
parent).
Though not a
political activist, I’ll confess to being one of the “far right wing extremists” vociferously derided by
left-wingers. I could also be
classified among the “religious right,” for I think our constitution and laws
should be consistent with biblical principles; I believe the founders of our
nation intended that to be so, and that they were correct in their
intentions. I doubt that founders
intended “separation of church and state” to become what it is today, where any
semblance of biblical or religious connection with public affairs is resisted
by groups such as the American Civil
Liberties Union and
People for the American Way, and whose resistance is often supported
by the judicial system. The first
amendment to
the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” I think that statement
simply means that no organized religious group should control the government,
nor should the government control and support any organized religious group.
◊◊◊
While the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is often
misinterpreted, the tenth is now ignored; politicians have long since abandoned
its principles, although Senator Bob Dole gave lip service to it during his run
for the presidency in 1996. The tenth
amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.” Would
the federal government be involved in the arts, education, energy, housing,
welfare, or reproductive rights (to mention only a few areas) if that amendment
had controlled congressional activity?
I wish the federal government were involved in only those functions the
states and the people can’t handle (e.g., national defense or interstate
commerce/transportation), but, generally speaking, both Republicans and
Democrats accept incursions of the federal government into areas far beyond the
intent of the authors of the tenth amendment.
Most Democrats seem to relish the incursions, and would expand them
further, while most Republicans seem to reluctantly go along.
I think our
major political parties have drifted far away from the intent of their
founders. Both were relatively
conservative when I was young; during my lifetime each has drifted far
leftward. Many Texans/Southerners who
thought of themselves as conservative Democrats have seen their political
“home” shift from under them. Texas
Governor Allan Shivers’ support for General Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential
election (“Democrats for Eisenhower”) presaged upcoming changes in political
allegiances among groups who had always been considered safely Democratic.
I used to
joke on chilly days in the early ‘50s, “It’s a cold day in Texas; Governor
Allan Shivers.”
The Democratic party now shivers, figuratively speaking, from political
shifting across the south/southwest, of which Governor Shivers was a
forerunner. Shifting Shivers!!
I vote for Republican candidates nowadays because most of them try to
restrain government expansion, but I fear they’ll never get the federal
government out of areas that should be the purview of the states.
I wasn’t
always a “far right wing extremist.” While a student at the University of Texas I
accepted contentions that a capitalistic economy is depression-seeking, so
needs income transfers to redistribute wealth from haves to have-nots. That contention assumes a static economy,
but, in reality, the economic “pie” can grow, and, to mix metaphors, when that
happens “the rising tide lifts all boats;” a job is better than a handout.
Buying the
static economy contention tends to make one lean leftward, as I did, until the
real world reveals the invalidity of the assumption. I agree with Judge Robert Bork’s
contention during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s 1987 hearings regarding his
appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, “If a man isn’t a socialist at
twenty-five, he has no heart; if he’s still a socialist at forty-five, he has
no head.”
I stated earlier in this segment that, though interested in public
affairs and politics, I’m not a political
activist. I’m not sure whether my passivity is the
result of a non-confrontational nature, laziness, shyness, or lack of courage
of my convictions (i.e., chicken); the correct answer may well be “all of the
above.” Though not an activist, I
follow national affairs pretty closely.
I’m about public affairs as I am about football – I don’t attend games,
but I watch them on television and recognize many players, both by sight and
sound.
My participation in public affairs is limited to writing letters to
editors, talk show hosts, and government officials. I’ve had numerous letters published in newspapers, and have
received some very nice responses to my communications with members of the U.S.
House and Senate. Oddly enough, the
nicest have come from representatives and senators for whom I can’t vote, so
their offices had nothing to gain politically from responding to my comments.
I began writing letters to editors and Washington politicians long
before I retired. Areas of concern in
pre-retirement years included deficit spending, the threat of repeal of section
14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act (“right-to-work”), the Chrysler
“bail-out,” and relinquishing control of the Panama Canal.
Retirement has allowed me time to develop opinions on many subjects;
word processors make their formulation and expression easy, so I’ve made the
most of my opportunities. E-mail
enables me to communicate my opinions almost instantaneously.
Hosts of
some public affairs shows invite viewer comment, so I’ve often submitted
comments, but have seen only one of my contributions printed on the screen and
read on the air: Howard Kurtz, host of CNN’s
“RELIABLE SOURCES,” read the following comment of mine in a viewer comments
segment near the end of his March 31, 2001 show: “The one common characteristic of media folks, whether of left or
right persuasion, is that all seem to think their intellect superior to the
rest of the world.” That was a
criticism of the media; I don’t think I’ve ever had one of my political
opinions read on air. Nevertheless, I
write on.
Former U.N. Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes articulates well many of the things I believe about our nation. He
seems to comprehend founders’ intents, and I believe he best understands the
implication of the statement in our pledge of allegiance that we are “one
nation under God.” He sounds almost
like an Old Testament prophet – which is probably one reason he could never be
elected to the presidency.
The modern church world could probably use more prophet-like
spokesmanship and leadership (of either Old or New Testament variety),
particularly in its “politics.” Rancor,
rather than a Christ-like spirit, often abounds when Christians disagree. Disagreements intensify even as churches and
denominations grow more alike, all drifting (like society in general) further
from principles of their founders, with consequent blurring of distinctions.
I suspect
diminution of Bible knowledge and doctrine has been the primary cause of
blurred distinctions between denominations/religious groups.
Even though most in the church world have become more alike,
disagreements within seem to grow more hostile. I am troubled by rancorous Christians showing outright animosity
toward each other during church and denominational struggles (in costrast with parties to civic struggles, who usually preserve
amicable feelings toward one another despite antithetical positions
taken). The anomaly is bothersome. Honest interpretational disagreements
regarding biblical teachings are to be expected (else there wouldn’t be so many
denominations), but I see no excuse for hard feelings between Christian folks,
regardless of the causes of their disagreements.
Church and intradenominational squabbles, like those in civic life,
often seem to be more about power than principle (although principle is usually
claimed by all). For instance, I’ve had
difficulty seeing little but group politics as the basis for schism in my
denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. If my view is correct, that the real issue
has been power, then the whole struggle is distasteful and contrary to biblical
exposition of Christian behavior. I
can’t see much wrong with either side in the controversy, other than in their
distortions about, and attitudes toward, each other.
The following factors stood out as I observed the power
struggle develop between SBC “fundamentalists” and
“moderates:”
·
The controversy boiled over when a small group of very
conservative Southern Baptists felt something should be done about seminary
professors they perceived to be liberal, then organized an effort to take over
leadership of the convention and deal with that liberalism. Their effort to elect a conservative
president, who in turn was in position to name conservatives to appointive
positions, was successful in 1979, and has been successful in each subsequent
election.
·
Specific questions about doctrinal liberalism involved
scriptural inerrancy, pastoral authority, and the place of women in ministry.
·
Some seminary presidents and professors who resisted the
new leadership were removed from their positions. Hard feelings resulted.
·
Some moderates apparently had a “live and let live”
attitude toward (1) those who adopted a pro-choice position with regard to
abortion, (2) practicing homosexuals, even in positions of church leadership,
and (3) same-sex marriages; most conservatives, viewing both abortion and the
homosexual lifestyle as contrary to scriptural teaching, could not accept a
“live and let live” attitude toward practitioners of either.
·
Moderates perceived “hard-line” conservative positions as
too authoritarian, denying scriptural teaching regarding (1) priesthood of the
individual believer and (2) local church autonomy, thus preventing individuals
and churches from living as “free and faithful Baptists.”
I haven’t wanted to take a side in the long-term dispute among
Southern Baptists, because I don’t believe either side to be guilty of most of
the charges made by the other (e.g., some moderates accuse the “fundamentalist”
conservatives of not believing in the priesthood of the believer and the
autonomy of the local Baptist church, while some conservatives accuse moderates
of liberalism, but I’ve never met a Baptist of any stripe who didn’t believe in
the priesthood of the believer or autonomy of the local church, nor have I met
a serious Baptist of the moderate persuasion whom I consider to be liberal.)
I consider myself a “fundamentalist” doctrinally, but not
politically. I believe in fundamental
scriptural truths regarding Christian faith and practice, but I think each
individual is free to interpret scripture as he feels led by God’s Holy Spirit,
and autonomous churches shouldn’t feel compelled to follow denominational
orthodoxy; no Christian should impose his understanding of truth on others.
Though fundamentalist theologically, I consider myself to
be a practical, though non-political, moderate. If I had to label myself, I would choose “conservative
independent” (thus leaving me in “no-man’s land” regarding the SBC controversy,
closer to fundamentalist belief, but not opposed to mission objectives
moderates hoped to achieve through their Cooperative Baptist Fellowship).
Cecil Sherman, a
moderate activist/leader, with whom I went to high school, and whom I admire
greatly, has called non-partisans, such as myself, “pious dodgers.” Perhaps he is right, but I still can’t
believe Christians should fight each other; Satan is the enemy, not fellow
Christians. I wish only success for the
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the group he headed in
its infancy, but I wish the same for the Southern Baptist work he left.
I’ve told Cecil I would prefer being called a “neutral
dodger,” rather than a “pious dodger,” for I make no claim to piety.
Most of my knowledge about the controversy within the Southern Baptist
Convention came from reading Baptists
Today. While not an organ of the Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship (dissenters from current Southern Baptist leadership), Baptists Today has been sympathetic
with the CBF cause, and has served as an outlet for expressions of moderate
positions and frustrations with SBC leadership. Writers of articles and letters have lamented the end of the “old
SBC,” but I don’t see the new SBC as being much different from the old
SBC. I sent a lengthy discussion of the
subject to Baptists Today on April
15, 1996, and was told it would be published, but that never happened, perhaps
because of its length (in fairness to Baptists
Today, I should note that all other letters I submitted over several years
were published, some before and some after that particular submission). The text of the April 15, 1996 discussion,
entitled “Old versus New SBC,”
follows:
Nostalgia
for “the old SBC” seems to pervade the thoughts of many moderates who are (1)
still adjusting to the reality that conservative control of the Southern
Baptist Convention will not likely end soon and (2) trying to decide whether CBFers
can be happy as an SBC splinter group, or must separate completely to be “free
and faithful.”
I contend
that the old SBC was not very different from the new SBC; dogmatic
authoritarianism, which seems to be the
hardest pill to swallow today, may have been more muted in earlier days, but it
was there. Perhaps we just liked
authoritarians of yesteryear better than we do those of today; society in general
used to suffer authoritarianism more easily than it does now.
I grew up
in the ‘30s and ‘40s, had what was probably a typical SBC upbringing, and
attended a Baptist college before and after military service. I respected my parents, my elders, teachers,
pastors, lawmen, and military superiors – in short, everyone in authority – and
resented none of them; I tended not to question either their occasional
dogmatic assertions or their motives.
Following
are some of the “Baptistic” assertions I remember hearing from time to time
during my younger days:
·
Only SBC literature is acceptable in Sunday School classes.
·
The Lord’s Supper is for those of “like faith and order”
(or, possibly, only local church members).
·
Anyone joining the church by statement must affirm that
he/she has previously been baptized into a Baptist church. Baptism is required for anyone coming into
the church from a non-Baptist denomination, regardless of that denomination’s
beliefs about, or method of, baptism.
·
Deacons are to be husbands of one wife; this eliminates not
only women and divorced/remarried men, but also unmarried men.
·
Do not work for gain on the Lord’s day or do anything that
requires someone else to do so.
·
Do not consume beverage alcohol or patronize businesses
that sell it.
·
A dancing foot and a praying knee don’t grow on the same
limb. (Other questionable activities
include movie attendance, card playing, Sunday sports, mixed bathing, and
“copulation for recreation, not procreation.”)
I recall
seeing church fellowship withdrawn from a man and a woman who had left their
respective spouses, then married.
I cannot
imagine what would have happened if an acknowledged practicing homosexual had
asked for church membership, much less ordination to a church office or
blessing of a same-sex marriage.
Many pastors would not perform marriage ceremonies for
divorcees.
Regarding
scripture, one often heard, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles
it.” Infallibility, if not inerrancy,
of scripture was assumed; I’m not sure I see any practical difference between
the two concepts.
I do not
wish to denigrate either the people who propounded the beliefs/practices listed
above or the beliefs themselves (although some of them would not be very
popular in most Baptist churches today).
I list them merely to support my contention that dogmatic
authoritarianism is not new.
(Parenthetically,
and perhaps paradoxically, I should note that the most dogmatic authoritarians
fiercely avowed their beliefs in the priesthood of the believer and the
autonomy of the local church; I would not have been surprised to hear them
refer to themselves as “free and faithful Baptists.”)
The “good
old SBC,” free of authoritarian figures and attitudes, may have never really
existed, or, if it did exist, did so for only short periods of time. Some church historians say that there has
always been tension in the SBC between fundamentalists (I call them authoritarians) and more
moderate pragmatists; the thing that has changed since 1979 is that the
authoritarians got the upper hand politically.
In view of
political realities, I suggest that disaffected moderates forget the past and
look forward to whatever future the Lord provides. Bitterness and nostalgia won’t help CBF do its task. If it is any consolation to CBFers, most
conservative Baptists who are still in the SBC (particularly we who have not
taken sides in the long-running controversy – and there are lots of us) desire
only the best for CBF and all Christians doing His work.
I trust that one day soon people of good will on both sides of the
controversy will decide to bury the hatchet, live and let live, and move on in
spiritual peace to whatever comes next for them. Life is too short to live in controversy, and, as I say elsewhere
in this writing, nothing is really important unless it has eternal consequences – and eternal consequences of controversy
will surely be negative, so worth avoiding.