MODERATES FIGHT TO DEFEAT FUNDAMENTALISTS RULERSHIP..BUT LOOSE
There is a sense of irony in all of the conflict since all Southern Baptists would be viewed as conservative by those outside the tradition. From the late 1970s forward, they came to veiw themselves as fundamentalists and moderates (those against the fundamentalists). Doctrinally they were not terribly different. But the moderates were vastly different in their social justice issues of equality.Dividing the two sides was also the issue of pastoral authority. The fundamentalists believed in a pattern of authority where a husband has authority over his wife and a pastor over his church. Due to this hierarchy fundamentalists saw it inappropriate for a woman to be ordained as a pastor. The moderates thought any believer should have a right to be an ordained pastor.
The two sides also tended to differ on various social and political issues as well. Fundamentalists were not supportive issues such as homosexuality, and the Equal Rights Amendment. The fundamentalists strongly believed in the issues they took a stand on and would fight diligently to see these issues implemented in the SBC. On the other side the moderates did not have anywhere close to a unanimous decision on any of these political or social issues.
The two sides differed dramatically on what they believed to be important about being a Baptist. The key for the fundamentalists was that they needed a way to get their views and ideas into the SBC, which was dominated by the moderate people who were leading the SBC in a direction, which they didn't want to go.
This controversy began to unfold within the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 1970's and continued to dominate the denomination's attention for the balance of the century.
As fundamentalists rapidly took control of the SBC they began making the necessary changes they deemed appropriate. In 1984, a resolution was passed at the convention in Kansas City, which excluded women from pastoral roles because the woman was first in the Edenic fall. By 1985, the fundamentalists had been appointing trustees for boards who were proven to be inerrantists to institute their policies. The fundamentalists were convinced that agencies were not being governed under biblical principals and they wanted the right people in office to ensure biblical principles would be applied. 24 .
For years and years the moderates continued to fight against the fundamentalists only to lose virtually every time on every issue. One can only be left to wonder how and why were the fundamentalists so successful in their endeavors to control the Southern Baptist Convention.
FUNDAMENTALISTS GATHER THE MOST LISTENERS BECAUSE THEIR SPEAKERS ARE LOUDER & THUS SEEM MORE POWERFUL
Despite the efforts of the moderates to combat the takeover by the fundamentalists they lost the battle for several reasons.The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents.
The inability of the moderates to gather support for their cause also contributed to a fundamentalist victory. The moderates could not gather enough support because only the older people who had dedicated their lives to the SBC were willing to take on the fight. Younger people simply were not willing to dedicate their lives to a fight with the fundamentalists. Still, a schism within the SBC is probably not likely. A major reason for this is the high degree of autonomy that each local congregation maintains. Ministers, and their congregations may disagree with the leadership direction of the SBC, but what happens at the national level has little, if any, affect them. Thus, if churches feel that the convention is irrelevant to them, there is little initiative to leave. In the late 1980's Nany Ammerman, the leading scholar of Southern Baptists conducted a study and concluded that most churches anticipated no changes at all in their church despite the fundamentalist takeover. If people today still feel that they and their church are autonomous from the national convention then a schism is very unlikely to occur.
