I am an unashamed theological conservative. I am glad that conservatives won the battles of the 1980’s and 1990’s. I disagree with most moderate Baptists about most issues, at least those issues related to convention theology and politics. But many moderate scholars were right about at least one thing: the single-issue nature of the conservative alliance, the very tactic that resulted in an almost total conservative victory, has the potential to be our very undoing. Let me explain.

Conservative leaders like Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler have been very up front about their strategy in the 1980’s. They made the inerrancy of Scripture the heart of their platform; in fact, at times inerrancy was almost the totality of their platform (along with perhaps Religious Right politics). This was a smart political move for several reasons. First, while many average Southern Baptists may not understand all the nuances of the differences between conservatives and moderates, they can understand that some SBC leaders believed the Bible contains mistakes of fact. Second, there was the desire to draw together as many SBC inerrantists as possible by not dividing over those issues that inerrantists disagree about among themselves. Third, there was the assumption that, once SBC leadership and scholars were committed to a common view of biblical inspiration, all those other issues could be worked out. More on that later.

Making the inerrancy of Scripture the issue during the SBC Controversy was a brilliant political strategy. It was perfect for winning the war. But what happens once a denomination has won the war and needs to keep the peace?

Many conservatives are scared to say it, but it seems self-evident: the coalition is breaking apart. The war is over. And inerrancy, though absolutely necessary, is no longer enough. So either by choice or by varying degrees of ostracism from the majority, subgroups of inerrantists have either departed or disengaged from active SBC life.

The first inerrantists to move away from the larger movement were those inerrantists who were either sympathetic to the pre-1979 status quo, were critical of some personalities or tactics among conservative leadership, or both. Many of these inerrantists comprise the “rank and file” of groups like CBF, and not a few of them now refuse to call themselves inerrantists because of what they perceive to be the “baggage” associated with that term in SBC circles.

The second group of inerrantists to be excluded from the movement were the egalitarians. Now to be fair, most egalitarians are not inerrantists. And most of them were totally committed to the moderate side all along. But the few that considered themselves SBC conservatives, most of whom were professors, were on the outs by the mid-1990’s and definitely by the time the Baptist Faith & Message was revised in 2000. In the post-Controversy SBC, egalitarians need not apply.

Although neither of the above groups are involved in the SBC in any meaningful sense, the following subgroups constitute some of the varieties of SBC conservatism. 

The third subgroup of inerrantists is made up of SBC charismatics. Already by the 1980’s charismatics were getting into trouble in the convention, albeit typically at the associational level. But the Home Mission Board (now NAMB) developed a policy in the mid-1980’s that those who exercised the gift of tongues could not be appointed as home missionaries. And of course 20 years later this same issue is at the center of controversy with our International Mission Board. Those who practice charismatic gifts, almost surely a minority among SBC innerantists, are increasingly on the outs.

A fourth group of inerrantists that is increasingly controversial are the Calvinists. During the 1980’s, SBC Calvinism flew “under the radar” among most SBC inerrantists. But the Founders movement grew increasingly popular, Al Mohler was elected president of Southern Seminary, thousands of SBC 20-somethings were turned on to Reformed theology by collegiate conferences and the writings of men like John Piper and R. C. Sproul, and many of the sharpest scholars among SBC conservatives were committed to a basically Calvinistic understanding of salvation, even if there was disagreement about the extent of the atonement. Calvinism continues to be a point of contention among SBC conservatives, at times as much a generational conflict as a theological debate.

The final group of inerrantists that fast is becoming the new boogeyman in SBC life is made up of those (mostly) younger pastors and seminarians who are open to elements of the various Emergent/emerging/missional movements. This is not so much a group as a number of different groups that, to varying degrees, are interested in thinking outside the (SBC) box when it comes to doing local church ministry. And not coincidentally, many of the Southern Baptists who are open to insights from the above-mentioned movements are also committed to either Calvinism, elements of charismatic theology, or both.

While these groups of inerrantists have faced various degrees of ostracism within the wider inerrantist movement, other groups have positioned themselves increasingly as the “mainstream” of the conservative movement.

One group of inerrantists that continues to dominate the conservative agenda includes those “revivalist” inerrantists identified with the earliest days of the SBC megachurch movement and the smaller churches that follow the lead of those megachurches. They tend to appreciate the so-called “Sandy Creek” tradition in 18th and 19th century Baptist history, though they routinely project their own contemporary preferences onto the tradition. The revivalist movement is at odds, to varying degrees, with all of the above-mentioned movements, though the Emergent/emerging/missional crowd has enjoyed success among some of the newer megachurches. It is from this pool that many of the most notable SBC pastors and other leaders are drawn.

A second group of inerrantists whose star continues to rise is the Landmark movement, which is both a movement unto itself and a shadow-movement that can be present as a subset of many of the above movements (particularly the revivalist and Calvinist movements). Landmarkism was long out of touch with SBC leadership, but has enjoyed a major revival in the last 30 years or so. Once confined to the mostly rural churches of Kentucky and Arkansas, Landmarkism is once again roaming the halls in some corners of SBC academia.

What this admittedly simplistic typology should make clear is that the SBC inerrantist movement was never a monolithic movement, but rather was a loose coalition of different movements, some of which do not always play nicely together. Add to this plurality of movements newer trends like the Emergent/emerging/missional groups, and you have a Southern Baptist Convention that is much more conservative now than it was in 1975, but is as divided as it has ever been; the divisions are simply different in our present context.

The question before us is this: where do we go from here? Can the inerrantist coalition, already splintering, sustain itself indefinitely, or is the SBC going to look drastically different in another 20 years? Let me offer some personal observations and prescriptive suggestions, all of which are nothing more than the opinion of one somewhat informed Southern Baptist. This is not so much an exhaustive list as it is personal musings.

First, it was probably a mistake to limit the conservative theological agenda to inerrancy. There is little doubt that it led to a speedier victory, but I cannot help but wonder if we would be in better shape had we spent more time articulating a more fully-orbed conservative agenda. As it is, we are left fighting among ourselves about a host of issues and looking rather obnoxious to the watching world.

Second, there are some groups that (in my opinion) should have never been included in the coalition, and others that it was probably best they voluntarily leave. Full-fledged egalitarians should have never been included because, frankly put, most conservatives other than those in the Wesleyan tradition agree that there are some ecclesiastical positions that women are biblically precluded from occupying. At the very least, that would include pastors/elders. The rest can be debated and is debated. [It should be noted that most conservative leaders apparently feel the same way, seeing as egalitarianism was systematically "de-conservatized" in the SBC from 1984 to ca. 2000]. 

I also think it is best that most inerrantists who are sympathetic to the pre-1979 status quo have left or disengaged from the SBC, not because they are not fellow inerrantists, but because their convictions on other issues (like gender roles) are sufficiently different from most Southern Baptists to necessitate their cooperating with other networks and fellowships. They are more free to be themselves in CBF or Mainstream Baptists than in the SBC.

Third, some of these inerrantist movements are troubling if they are embraced without criticism. An uncritical embracing of the left-wing Emergent movement is bad news, and it is OK to say so publicly. What is not OK is to claim, as some have, that anyone who uses words like “emerging” or “missional” are on the same level as Brian McLaren; to suggest as much is to break the ninth commandment. This is the source of unending (and often unneccessary) controversy among SBC conservatives.

It would also be a mistake to uncritically embrace Landmarkism. Let me say loud and clear that I am much more concerned about those among us with no discernable Baptist ecclesiology than I am with Landmarkers. At least Landmarkers are attempting to articulate a systematic, biblical ecclesiology, even when (in my opinion) they fall short. Landmarkism itself is not the bad guy. But some versions of Landmarkism are not benign. There is a type of strident Landmarkism that historically has led to the rejection of cooperative missions among Southern Baptists and attempted to equate “Landmark” with “Baptist.” Modern versions of this malignant Landmarkism should be resisted because they will destroy us.

Fourth, many people engaged in the Calvinism debate need to take a cold shower. Many obnoxious Calvinists (especially aged 21-35) need to show some Christian charity to non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. And many vitriolic anti-Calvinists need to at least attempt to understand the tenets of Calvinism before they preach or write against them. It breaks my heart that this issue is so divisive, and I cannot help but think most of the problem is a combination of immature Calvinists who make uncharitable comments on blogs coupled with carnal or ignorant pastors and others who are more concerned with discrediting Calvinism than honestly exegeting texts and/or accurately describing Calvinist convictions. If you are a Calvinist freedom fighter who is concerned with the doctrines of grace to the exclusion of denominational cooperation, do us all a favor and become an independent Reformed Baptist; it is what you really are. And if you are a revivalist who believes that Calvinism = hyper-Calvinism or ignorantly believes that Calvinism hinders evangelism and mission, do us all a favor and become an independent fundamentalist Baptist; it is what you really are.

Fifth, Southern Baptists need to decide soon what we are going to do about the charismatic movement. We will not all share the same conviction. But we need to decide if it is OK to be a charismatic and be in Southern Baptist leadership or not. And then we need to stick with whatever we decide, because is is unacceptable to be a denomination that indefinitely has no formal policy but instead has a variety of mini-policies at various boards and agencies. While I wholeheartedly believe the trustees and/or administrations of those agencies have the right to make such decisions, the proliferation of such policies without a formal denominational position only further divides Southern Baptists. We need to at least officially decide what we are going to do, even if it is to remain silent at the convention level; at least then the issue will not be looming over us.  

Sixth, we should resist the temptation to look at one church or type of church as the pacesetter for all SBC churches. There are some who look to FBC Woodstock, some who look to Capitol Hill Baptist Church, some who look to Saddleback, and even some who look to the average (whatever that means) rural church. None of these should be the only model, because the SBC needs each of these (and other) types of churches. For too long too many Southern Baptist have looked to older megachurches as the embodiement of the what is best about the SBC. Others, in a reaction to this trend, romanticize rural churches as the heart and soul of the SBC. Still others, especially in younger generations, look to notable Calvinistic churches or confessedly missional churches as the future of the SBC. The reality is each of these types of churches have strengths and weaknesses, and each of them (I hope) are part of the future of the SBC.

Finally, Southern Baptists need to decide what constitutes the acceptable limits to conscientious dissent. In other words, on which issues (if any) is is appropriate for a trustee, committee member, seminary professor, missionary, or other denominational servant to disagree with the majority? Is it OK to object to items found in the Baptist Faith & Message and/or other agency-specific confessions of faith? Which items? Is it OK to affirm convictions not delineated in our confessions but are undoubtedly minority positions among Southern Baptists (glossolalia, open membership, etc.)? This will undoubtedly be controversial, but we have to work through this question. My suspicion is that everyone agrees in principle that some dissent is appropriate and some is inappropriate. But until we at least attempt to reach a consensus that most Southern Baptists can affirm, we will continue to have conflict over minority convictions. My big fear is that, because of our current milieu, the “battle lines” have already been drawn on this topic, hindering meaningful dialog about this crucial issue.

This much is certain: Southern Baptists will continue to lose many of the most gifted men and women of my generation to community churches, Sovereign Grace churches, Evangelical Free Churches, the PCA, and Bible churches until we admit that there are genuine differences among SBC inerrantists, stop demonizing both dissenters and status quo apologists (depending upon context), and make a good-faith effort to trek together through these deep waters until we arrive at the dry land of a newer, healthier, more robust SBC conservatism. Conflict will be inevitable as we move forward, and uncooperative agitators in all parties will need to be encouraged to move on to other affiliations, both for their own integrity and the integrity of our convention.

The key is to be open-minded and big-hearted as we move forward in this project, never allowing personal agendas, vendettas, or the convictions of one party to hijack the process and ruin all hope of a cooperative future. We must diligently reject the agendas of status quo hacks and suicide bloggers, Genevan mafia and Anabaptist culture-warriors, post-denominationalists and Bapto-centric bigots, angry fundamentalists and closet moderates. In other words, the key is to be balanced, not as “balance” is defined by any of these agenda-driven subgroups, but as balance is defined by the majority, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and in submission to Holy Scripture. If this is the approach that characterizes us as a denomination, then I think our best days are still ahead.