An Analysis of Fosdick's "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?"

Perhaps the most eloquent oratory championing liberal Christianity is Harry Emerson Fosdick's 1922 sermon "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" Fosdick himself is a fascinating character in history—one of the most engaging papers I ever heard in seminars dealt with Fosdick. Tonight I offer for your consideration my reflections upon a recent re-reading of Fosdick's magnum opus.

To keep up, you should really spend a few moments first to read "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" I know that some of you won't bother, but if you don't read the sermon first, don't blame me if you have trouble keeping up within the body of my post.

It strikes me that Fosdick's opening strategy is to contrast "Fundamentalists" with the "evangelical churches." I had forgotten this from my earlier readings of the sermon. Fosdick was writing at a time when liberals were actually willing to own the name. He does unapologetically refer to liberalism within the body of the sermon. But his opening contrast is between "Fundamentalism" and the "evangelical churches," even before he refers to "liberal opinions." I hadn't realized that the roots of the strategy to mask liberalism as evangelicalism went back so far into history.

Liberalism is emphatically convinced that our moment in time is so consequential as to invalidate all that went before it. Consequently, it desperately postulates that Christianity cannot much longer endure except liberals be allowed to make it relevant. It is "the last generation" that has been enlightened to a "great mass of new knowledge." The tailoring of Christianity to update it with the latest fads of thinking is "indispensable to the Christian Church." Indeed, if Christianity is not immediately steeped in liberalism, then it will surely lose the newest generations, for no "man who is worthwhile" could ever be interested in a conservative church. Dr. Mark Dever has spoken recently regarding the link between liberalism and the quest for relevance. Dr. Dever is 100% right. "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" is dripping with panic over the numeric decline that would surely follow the triumph of Fundamentalism. Of course, we who live eight decades after Fosdick preached this sermon know that precipitous decline actually came to those who heeded Fosdick, not to those who remained true to God's Word. Then again, perhaps in Fosdick's estimation most of those people aren't "worthwhile." In contrast, those who deny the virgin birth are people whom the church "needs."

Fosdick complained that the Fundamentalists were wrongly elevating non-essential (dare I say, "tertiary") ideas beyond the gravity that they deserved. The Fundamentalists were "driving in their stakes" around such trivia as the virgin birth of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, and the second-coming of Christ (not in what sequence Christ is coming back, but whether Christ is coming back). According to Fosdick, these things simply were not primary questions of doctrine.

Fosdick's clarion call, mind you, was simply for magnanimity in cooperation among Christian brethren. He was more than willing to cooperate with people who held to such a quaint notion as Christ's propitiatory death on the cross; they just weren't willing to cooperate with him. The sin of the Fundamentalists is their insistence that they "have the right to deny the Christian name to those who differ…on such points." Essentially, Fundamentalists simply aren't "tolerant." Fosdick worried that the Fundamentalist movement was causing problems on the "foreign field," where Fundamentalists were doing damage to the missionary cause.

Of course, Fosdick included the obligatory insinuation that the Fundamentalists are closet papists.

Fosdick closes the sermon by reiterating his two main points: Christians need a "tolerant, liberty-loving church," and Christians need to put aside the "quarreling over little matters" (the atonement, the Bible, the incarnation) in favor of the "main issues of modern Christianity" (the "great needs" of the world for "justice," which perhaps Fosdick could prompt the church to address through some sort of new covenant?)

Fosdick's sermon is poison. If you don't believe me, examine the corpses of "churches" that made a repast of his brew. It kinda makes you want to be careful what you swallow.

The Pernicious Evil of Mere Preference

…in matters of denominational division

It is a serious matter to divide the Body of Christ. In the New Testament we find both the longing of Christ that division might not take place (John 17:20-23), and the accomplished fact of division as the necessary consequence of discipline in the church and the task of contending earnestly for the faith (e.g., 1 John 2:18-19; 1 Corinthians 5:13; Jude...in its entirety; Revelation 2:2, 6, 14-16, 20-25). In every case, the only grounds for division in the New Testament were as a response to the continued, unrepentant sin (either in doctrine or in practice) of fellow members in the church. Every age of Christianity has understood this simple truism: Division is to be avoided and unity is to be prized in the body of Christ. The only appropriate time to cleave the people of God is in response to unrepentant sin.

• When Christiantiy divided East and West, the leaders of the two factions mutually excommunicated one another. If they had not considered it a matter of sin, they would not have divided.
• When Martin Luther left Roman Catholicism, he did so over what he regarded as profound, unrepentant sin in the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. If he had not considered it a matter of sin, he would not have divided.
• When John Smythe and company separated from their congregation of English expatriates, Smythe declared the faith and practice of the Anglican Church, the Ancient Church, and all of his former spiritual kindred to be "Antichristian." If he had not considered it a matter of sin, he would not have divided.

As I said, every age of Christianity has understood this simple truism—every age, that is, except for the present age. To divide the Body of Christ over anything other than obstinate, unrepentant sin is itself an act of obstinate, unrepentant sin. We have instituted in some corners among ourselves a consumeristic mutant of Christianity in which the basis of unity is, rather than our collective submission to the indwelling Christ, the common preferences of our little band regarding the things that we consume (music, activities for our children, activities for ourselves, or preferences for cultural trappings). People shop for churches like they shop for restaurants. This is the legacy of Evangelicalism, which derives its idiosyncrasies from the present zeitgeist—it is just so much more polite to sidestep questions of true or false, right or wrong, and find refuge in the concept of personal preference. Enter a recent conversation I had with Paul Littleton at his blog (click here). Paul had his knickers in a knot over Dr. Mark Dever's frank assertion that pedobaptists are engaged in unrepentant sin for baptizing contrary to Christ's institution of the ordinance in the Bible. I entered the thread to assert that Dever was no less consistent than Littleton (or John Piper), who would bar pedobaptists from positions of leadership in the church. Paul retorted that his church's refusal to place a pedobaptist in positions of high leadership within the church was based merely upon their preferences, and not upon any matters so grave to call them sinful:

No, our church would not call a paedobaptizer as pastor, but it isn't because we would say he is an unrepentant sinner. That I know of Faith Baptist would not allow an unrepentant sinner to knowingly speak from the pulpit. We also discourage unrepentant sinners from partaking of the Lord's table (though we don't always know who they are, so that is often left to their own consciences). But again, we would not consider our Presbyterian brother an unrepentant sinner. . . . . . . . . The reason would be that we are a Baptist church and he is a Presbyterian. We believe in believer's baptism by immersion and he does not. We practice congregationalism and I would presume he does not.

Littleton's underlying point here is that he considers "Baptist" and "Presbyterian" to denote personal religious preferences—that being one or the other does not amount to a sin. Certainly, I can comprehend coming to the conclusion that Baptists and Presbyterians are divided by mere preference. Christian history is replete with churches split, individuals alienated, and battles waged over things that, in the long run, history has adjuged to be less than substantial. Perhaps, someday, somebody like Paul will convince me that the distinctive beliefs of Baptists are not matters of biblical obedience, but instead are merely points of private interpretation. It's possible. But when I am so convinced, I shall know what I must immediately do—at that moment, if I would be faithful to Christ, I must immediately renounce the separate existence of such a thing as a Baptist church and repent of ever being a member of such a church. Why? Because it is a sin to divide the Body of Christ (or to perpetuate division) over matters of mere preference. Thus my reply to Littleton:

Put me in the same category as John Smythe, Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, John Clarke, et al. If it would not be a sin for me to merge with the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Romans, or whomever else (i.e., if to do so I would not be joining them in their unrepentant sin), then it would be a sin for me not to do so. Anything less fails to take seriously Christ's plea for Christian unity.

…in matters of church leadership.

It is also a serious matter to deny to any person the opportunity to exercise what the person believes to be a calling from God. Jesus Himself warned us about hindering people in the pursuit of Christian ministry (Mark 9:38-40). The Bible also provides us with a full set of qualifications by which we admit or bar people into the offices of the church (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:9-3:13; Titus 1:5-9). When we apply these biblical qualifications, we know that we are limiting the offices of the church not according to our personal prejudices but according to God's command. Who are we to restrict the calling of God? If we limit the offices based upon anything other than biblical authority, we limit them based upon illegitimate authority and are guilty of a grievous sin. Enter a recent post by Wade Burleson (click here). Burleson's post spun off from a post by R. L. Vaughn (click here), which in turn found its origin in the comment stream of a post by Emily Hunter-McGowin (click here). Burleson's position appears in his own words in comment #137 at the original post, where he said:

Finally, I have said publicly that I would not personally lead my church to hire a female pastor, would not be a member of a church where the senior pastor was female, and I have no problem personally with the BFM 2000 on this issue. However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural—and not Biblical.

Someday, somebody like Wade Burleson might convince me that the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as elders/pastors/overseers. Better men than I have reached this conclusion. It's possible. But when I am so convinced, I shall know what I immediately must do—at that moment, if I would be faithful to Christ, I must disavow my former affirmations of The Baptist Faith & Message, must campaign to alter the policies of FBC Farmersville to permit women to serve as pastors, and must give my personal benediction to women called to serve as pastors. Why? Because it is a grave matter to obstruct anyone in the pursuit of what they believe to be God's calling upon their lives. For me to dare to tell anyone, based upon nothing but the authority of my own mere preferences, that that person must not comply with what they believe to be God's calling upon their lives, would be a heinous act of sin. Either I have sound biblical grounds to say that they have misunderstood God's calling—that it would be sinful for them to pursue their plans contrary to the commandment of God—or I had better keep my opinion to myself and prevent my opinion from being legislated into the tenets of my church. But, in both of these matters (denominational division and qualficiations for biblical offices of the church), what if I am not convinced either way? What if I can see both sides of the matter? What if I have not come to any sound conclusion? Then I must preserve liberty on the matter. But liberty doesn't mean "I'll go arrange my church according to my view, and you go over there and arrange your church according to your view." Liberty means staying in the same congregation together and not making my uncertain preferences a test of fellowship. God prevent me from tying the hands of my own closest brethren over matters that I find entirely unimportant beyond the bounds of our local congregation. If I have matters of mere preference in view, my own congregation—my next-of-spiritual-kin—are the very last people upon whom I should impose my commands rather than the commandments of God. To divide or restrict the body of Christ over matters of mere preference (personal, cultural, denominational, or otherwise) is a pernicious evil.

Bridges and Fences

Joe Stewart has authored a new dispatch (see here) that strikes to the heart of the majority of current issues facing Southern Baptists. This post reveals the deep intellect and profound wisdom that Joe possesses. Visit the post and leave him a comment.

The Baptist Renaissance

This morning I have this quote from 1VP candidate David Rogers:

…At the same time, it would appear a certain sector within Southern Baptist life has taken on the mission to accentuate everything that distinguishes Baptists from other evangelical Christians to such a degree that our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted.

David's words, coming as they have within the last few hours, provide the perfect starting point for my final pre-convention post on this blog. I appreciate everyone's patience with my silence of late. I'll have to tell you about the funeral sometime.

I Support a Renewal of Baptist Identity

I received a kind comment from OKPreacher (his screen name a reference to geography, I am certain, rather than to homiletical prowess). The comment was on yesterday's post, but it was clearly anticipative of this post. That gives me a chance to reply to a comment in the original post—not something you get to do every day!

Bart, I appreciate your blog and everything you have to say. My concern is that we as Southern Baptists arn't focused on the most important problems facing us. For example, a renewal of baptist identity isn't going to help us reach more people for Christ. I would encourage a renewal of Christian identity amoung Baptists and all who claim to be Christians. From what I have experienced as a pastor is that most Southern Baptist members don't understand what it means to be a Christian. They don't understand the very basics of how to grow as a Christian. Sure they say they believe the Bible is inerrant and they give to the Lottie Moon Offering, but for them being a Christian is going to church on Sundays. Until we have a renewal of Christian identity, who cares about baptist identity. When Jesus raptures His church, it won't just be baptists going. Lets focus on what is really needed, a Christian identity that results in bring billions of people into God's Kingdom.

This brother and I agree more than perhaps either of us recognizes. I support a renewal of Baptist identity because it is precisely what we need in order to focus on the most important problems facing us and to renew our Christian identity. The heart of the Baptist movement is a desire for congregational authenticity and purity, coupled with a belief that the New Testament contains instructions for having just such a church. One key theological basis for Baptist practice is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—particularly the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the church. The seventeenth century Baptists mostly came to Baptist life from Anglicanism, convinced that the ills of the state church were the result of a church led by lost people who therefore were disconnected from the Holy Spirit. The problems of churches in the seventeenth century were the problems of the world around them. The Baptists saw the solution in the construction of (to quote Roger Williams), a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." In other words, the world ought to be able to see a clear difference between itself and the church. In their quest for authenticity, the Baptists concluded that authentic leadership was not enough to produce an authentic church. Authenticity must extend to the church's membership. The New Testament congregations were fellowships of professed believers only. The very grounds of New Testament unity were devotion to the teaching of the apostles (preserved for us in the Bible), their common immersion, their gathering at the common table, their shared contribution and labor in the common mission, etc. While recognizing and availing themselves of strong pastoral leadership (have you successfully talked your entire congregation into moving to another country together?), they made the work of the church pertain to its every member. I agree with OKPreacher that there are many Southern Baptists who "don't understand what it means to be a Christian." Indeed, I would assert that there are many Southern Baptists who are not Christians. This is precisely why we need a renewal of Baptist identity. Tom Ascol's resolution on Integrity in Church Membership needs to be enhanced to incorporate language about believer's baptism—one indispensible part of maintaining a regenerate church membership—but I think something like Dr. Ascol's resolution exemplifies an important manner in which we need a renewal of Baptist identity. The fact that such a resolution might not receive unanimous support in the SBC is powerful evidence of our problem; however, the fact that so many people would support it is a strong reason for hope in our future. I hope that it passes with some mention of believer's baptism this year. So (forgive me some measure of oversimplification) Baptist identity boils down to a congregation of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit for 100% participation in the church's mission. Nobody on the bench. I believe that it is the God-endorsed, Bible-prescribed tonic for what ails us. I just can't believe that we are considering the election of a First Vice-President who publicly disagrees with The Baptist Faith & Message and whose primary concern is that we might be too Baptist. Why would someone worried about too much emphasis upon being Baptist even want to be an officer of a Baptist organization? Aren't there enough generically evangelical organizations in the world that need a vice president? I love David and have greatly enjoyed our intermittent conversation over the past year, but his quote just befuddles me to no end.

I Support Biblical Christian Unity

...which is something altogether different from ecumenism (even in its evangelical variant). What is biblical Christian unity? I agree with The Baptist Faith & Message.

Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament..

I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, what is it that impedes a people from prevailing spiritually? Does the fact that there is a Methodist church across town keep your church from being what it ought to be? Not at all. Does the fact that brothers and sisters within your congregation bicker and fuss ever get in the way of your church's effectiveness? You bet it does. That's where we see a breach of Christian unity. We need to focus on inter-congregational unity, not neo-ecumenical schemes like the "city church." Running headlong after ecumenical entanglements will only make things worse—every ecumenical movement in history has had as its ultimate result the further fracture of the Body of Christ (Church of Christ, anyone?). Until we are ready to be united in sound biblical doctrine, we are not ready to be united. Our source of cooperative unity has always been doctrine, not missions. Roman Catholics were busy about missions before modern Baptists emerged, but we didn't unify with them. The Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was around for nearly a century before Baptists formed the Baptist Missionary Society. Congregationalists had organized for missions in America before the Baptists. If missions is the basis for our unity, then why did we create separate missionary bodies rather than just joining up with these groups? Because they weren't Baptist…that's why. Many Baptists (and put my name at the top of the list) are not going to foot the bill to plant Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, or Pentecostal churches. That is our historic position. If the planting of these kinds of churches is a worthwhile effort on our part, then we have sinned and are schismatics for forming anything like the Southern Baptist Convention to begin with. If we should be unified with them today, we should have been unified with them all along. Indeed, many of them were far closer to orthodoxy then in 1845 they are right now. I agree with the BF&M—let us cooperate with other Christians on any and all things that do not compromise our convictions. If that is why David means by "our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ", then I do not see how any renewal of our Baptist identity could ever endanger this kind of cooperation. If David means something else thereby, I would like to know exactly what he means, and how it fits in with what the BF&M has to say on the subject.

I Agree with Bill Underwood

North America does need a true Baptist witness, as does the world. Through the Conservative Resurgence, the Southern Baptist Convention has been poised to be that witness. Rescued from becoming yet another decadent ecclesial weathervane dancing to the winds of liberal mainline academia, The Southern Baptist Convention has asserted its faithfulness to the inerrant word of God, the doctrinal seedbed from which numerous Baptist sprouts were nurtured as the seventeenth century unfolded. But Baptists are not the only plants in that garden—not the only ones who claim biblical inerrancy. To be Baptist is to have concluded some things about what the Bible says. Let us not pretend that biblical interpretation is unimportant vis-à-vis the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The movie Crimson Tide pits Gene Hackman (Captain Frank Ramsey) against Denzel Washington (Lt. Commander Ron Hunter) in an epic contest with the detonation of nuclear weapons at stake. Command of a nuclear missile submarine changes hands three times during the course of the movie, with nuclear armageddon a trigger-pull away more than once. Throughout the movie, Hackman and Washington remain in complete agreement about who has the ultimate authority to order the release of nuclear weapons—only the President of the United States (i.e. "National Command Authority") possesses such authority. The difference between the two came down to a discrepancy over what the President had actually ordered: Not whose message was authoritative, but what had the authoritative message said? Sometimes my writing is clumsy and imprecise. Sometimes people struggle to discern what, really, I am trying to say. Communication can be a frustrating goal to achieve, due to our limitations in expressing ourselves. I believe better of the Bible. I trust that God writes better than Bart does. And, contrary to the assumptions of pragmatism and postmodernism, I believe that it is no more important to know the content of messages about the release of nuclear weapons than it is to know the content of messages about the relationship of people with God. If I were blown up by a nuclear weapon tomorrow, the event would be but a footnote to a life that will stretch eternally in Heaven. If, however, I were lost and lived to the ripe old age of 150 to die peacefully in my sleep, my great fortune in earthly longevity would constitute merely a footnote to an agony that would stretch eternally in Hell. The gospel is the focus of the New Testament. I believe that it is crticially important to proclaim the gospel clearly—thus my strong objection to the teachings of President Carter. The other things in the Bible are important, too. If they were not, God would not have bothered to provide them to us. Not only are they important, they are important for the sake of the gospel. For example, it is not necessary to know or even agree with the biblical qualifications for elders and deacons in order to be saved. But churches that, for example, call greedy swindlers as pastors are going to be less effective in the long run in carrying the gospel to the world than are churches that call godly men as qualified in the Bible. I believe that every element of biblical ethics, every element of biblical ecclesiology, every element of biblical pneumatology, every element of biblical doxology—every element of instruction for New Testament churches and believers—is a potential asset for the effective proclamation of the gospel. Ultimately, it is all about the gospel. Baptist churches share the gospel better when they are genuinely committed to Baptist belief. Recently, at a SENT conference for the SBTC, I presented a breakout session entitled "Baptist Identity as Missional Asset." My point was simply that the various elements of Baptist identity echo some of the same thoughts as those presented through the recent buzzword "missional." Healthy Baptist churches are naturally missional. Being Baptist is not something to run away from if you wish to be missional; it is something to be embraced and cultivated. So yes, Dr. Underwood, we do need a true Baptist witness in the world, for the very sake of the gospel. Evangelical porridge is a poor price to receive for the Baptist heritage, as is the liberal philosophy of man. Let us pray that such a witness endures somehow in the Southern Baptist Convention.

On Being Evangelical

The president of the Evangelical Theological Society has converted to Roman Catholicism (see his blog entry here). I observe the following:

1. Evangelical is just the kind of adjective that is in favor these days—it is void and without form. ETS's definition of Evangelicalism apparently (up to this point) has room within itself for denying the foreknowledge of God. Now, not just an Evangelical pew-sitter, not just a member of ETS, but the president of ETS has converted to Roman Catholicism. But the straying of a lone Evangelical is not the real issue here, so much as the fact that it is not a settled matter that he has strayed at all. Francis Beckwith apparently regards his Roman Catholicism as not being at odds with his status as an Evangelical. Indeed, other than for the public-relations issues that it might have caused, Beckwith thought it might be perfectly appropriate theologically for a Roman Catholic to lead the ETS. And according to Beckwith, it was not a foregone conclusion that others among ETS leadership would have any problem with his continuation as president under these circumstances. If "Evangelical" does not mean at least "not Roman Catholic", then what does it mean? And if the president of the ETS doesn't know what Evangelical means, then who does?
2. Beckwith cites his desire for unity as a strong motivation in his decision. Ultimately, Evangelical Ecumenism must concede to broader forms of ecumenism, for if it is conceded that unity trumps doctrine, then no firm stopping place can be asserted successfully for long. Look carefully at what Beckwith has written in the aforementioned blog post about justification.
3. Here's the perfect illustration of my differentiation between Roman Catholicism as cult (which I think it is not) vs. Roman Catholicism as false and apostate church (which I think it is). Had Beckwith joined the Mormons, I would conclude ipso facto that he is not a Christian. Having joined the Roman Catholics, I am prepared to do no more than to suspect that he has been educated beyond his intelligence and is in gross disobedience to Christ (Yes, to all of you scandalized by this statement, I am concluding that it is not Christ's will for anyone to be a Roman Catholic).
4. All this at what was once the world's largest Baptist university (and is still my alma mater). Beckwith teaches church-state studies at Baylor. Let us pray that the Lord will not tell Helwys, Williams, Clarke, Backus, and Leland that a Roman Catholic is being paid by Baptist churches to lecture Baptists about the proper relationship between church and state!
5. These observations illustrate why our mission boards and seminaries must strengthen their resolve to be Baptist (and to plant only Baptist congregations), not merely Evangelical. We must couple that resolve with a vigorous effort to make certain that we all know precisely what it means to be Baptist.

On Christian Unity

All who take seriously the scriptures and the lordship of Christ must bow before John 17 and embrace Christian unity as a primary goal for the kingdom. In the remainder of the New Testament I find only two causes that can warrant division in the body of Christ: defective doctrine and defective lifestyle. Christians are duty-bound to separate from those who become subject to church discipline for reasons of personal immorality or theological heterodoxy. Those two reasons, and no others.

Furthermore, it seems clear enough to me that the New Testament ideal for churches is that they be multi-generational, multi-ethnic, and presumably multifaceted with regard to the cultural trappings of the things that they did in common.

So it grieves me to notice a trajectory in this day and time (speaking of the general movement of our denomination, and not singling out any one person) toward what I regard as the opposite position regarding division in the body of Christ:

1. From where I sit, it appears that people become less and less willing to take theological stands when doing so risks division in the body of Christ. Thus, theology is on the decline as a cause that can warrant division in the body of Christ, although it is a legitimate scriptural cause for such.
2. Don't get me started on the abandonment of church discipline in the Southern Baptist Convention. Much of why we are where we are is a fear on the part of churches that effective church discipline will be unpopular or divisive, I believe.

Yet, on the other hand, it seems to me that people are clamoring to chop up the body of Christ piecemeal based upon:

1. The quest for a "homogeneous unit."
2. What kind of radio station people listen to and what style of music they want to sing in church.
3. Whether the church ought to relocate or stay where it is.
4. Attempts to facilitate change to the newest ministerial fad.
5. Petty personal differences.
6. Age.
7. Race.
8. I stop here not because I am out of things to list, but because I don't know that I would ever run out of things to list.

So, this Baptist sectarian would like to take a stand for Christian unity. Let's start by dealing with all of these things that are patently, obviously, without question unbiblical as causes of division. Personally I think they grieve the Holy Spirit much more than our honest efforts to be faithful to biblical doctrine.<

Pick-and-Choose Inclusivism

Does anyone else notice that the loudest voices calling for inclusiveness in the SBC today only call for the inclusion of people like themselves? Here's a brief and incomplete history of those with whom the SBC has parted company over the years. Those of you who are super-astute in Baptist history will have to forgive my omissions and consolidations as an effort to be concise:

1. The Northern Baptist Convention (presently, the American Baptist Churches)
2. The Primitive/Hardshell/Anti-mission Baptists
3. The Associational/Landmark Baptists
4. The Independent/Fundamentalist Baptists
5. The Modernistic/CBF Baptists

Wade Burleson and other left-sympathizing Southern Baptists call for our reconciliation with the Modernistic/CBF Baptists. For them, this issue and only this issue is the defining mark and epitome of forgiveness, Christian unity, hot-hearted missionary sentiment for the entire world, etc. For them, all theological issues except the core doctrines of the gospel must be set aside if they pose any obstruction to reunity with this group.

But what about the other groups? Why is there no heart for reconciliation with them? If this movement toward reconciliation really represents a desire for Christian unity and not just a sympathy toward liberalism, then why no constructive suggestion, plan, expression of support, or call for repentance offered toward those Baptists and other Christians who are to the RIGHT of Southern Baptists?

Indeed, why is there no encouraging comment toward the amazing and unprecedented recent efforts of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention toward reconciliation with the BMA? Talk about a "deafening silence"! In fact, the conservative resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention has not, entirely, been a movement that has brought about exclusion. It has demonstrably brought about healing with some of the Associational/Landmark Baptists and some of the Independent/Fundamentalist Baptists. These groups, of course, are objects of scorn and derision from the very people who pride themselves upon being "inclusive" and "forgiving" in their dealings with other Christians.

The message from those who have made Landmarkism and conservatism their whipping boys is not so difficult to discern: Let us reconcile with everyone except those who dare to differ at some point that our new "inclusivists" actually hold dear.