Theological liberalism in the SBC? A Brief Response

Baptist Press recently published a First-Person article entitled “Theological Liberalism in the SBC?” by Rhett Wilson, freelance author, bivocational pastor, and a senior writer for The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Wilson also blogs and, in fact, blogs well. I read several of his pieces and without qualification commend them. He is a superb writer.

On the other hand, I think Wilson misses his target completely in his estimation of what’s going on the the SBC. Allow me to explain. 

As the title of his piece in Baptist Press suggests, Wilson answers the question whether, from his perspective, Liberalism exists in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Definitively not, he explicitly claims, initially finding the notion shocking and a bit humorous: 

How shocking for me in the past year to hear numerous accusations, many coming from young pastors and theologues with blogs, claiming the SBC is becoming “liberal.” I’ve read statements that men like Danny Akin, Albert Mohler, Thom Rainer, and other notable SBC statesmen are “liberals.”

After the shock wears off and I stop chuckling, I want to say to these accusers, “Let’s get some perspective.” Sometimes labels depend on your context and comparisons.

. . . .

Liberals do not lead the Southern Baptist Convention today. Men and women fought that battle years ago.

. . . .

But the people who lead our denominational entities, teach at our seminaries and serve as trustees in our institutions are no theological liberals.

Wilson comes to this conclusion in his piece starting with his personal journey through Liberal academia in the early 1990s. Attending a Liberal Presbyterian college, Wilson was introduced first-hand to destructive higher criticism and the consequences it imposed upon the historic Christian faith, including undermining our faith’s primary epistemological support–the Holy Scriptures. Subsequently, Wilson enrolled at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he found theological orthodoxy in tact primarily due to its new young, vibrant and theologically sound president: “I heard of the strong stand Dr. Albert Mohler, the young president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), was taking on the Bible’s authority… How refreshing to attend a school that embraced a biblical worldview.” Wilson later accomplished doctoral work at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an evangelical seminary South Hamilton, MA.

Liberalism, the way Wilson describes it as it took over most mainline Christian higher education, was a “major, seismic theological shift from orthodoxy, to neo-orthodoxy (a fancy way of saying liberalism)” moving on to “the current state of leftism.” In short, the core notion of Liberalism “boiled down to one succinct idea to accept or reject: the authority of the Bible.” Indeed the core notion Wilson describes fits nicely the core notion declared by Conservative Resurgence leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention beginning in 1979–biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy became the flag conservative Southern Baptists sailed behind as they slowly steered a denominational ship drifting more and more out into dangerous liberal waters.

So far it’s hard to disagree with Wilson’s narrative. What he suggests happened to mainline denominations was swiftly happening to Southern Baptist institutions–a “major, seismic theological shift from orthodoxy, to neo-orthodoxy (a fancy way of saying liberalism)” inevitably leading to a tragic state of outright Bible-denying Liberalism. In Wilson’s words, Liberals “do not believe the Bible is God-breathed. They do not believe Jesus is necessary for salvation. They do not call people to repent and be born again. They do not teach personal holiness, how to walk in a Spirit-filled life, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.” Granted.

Nevertheless, while Wilson was spot on concerning the dangers of Liberalism facing evangelicals (especially the SBC) almost two generations ago, he appears confused about what’s happening presently in the Southern Baptist Convention. He sums up our current controversies as little more than differences that have mostly existed within the SBC since 1845. Namely, Calvinists and non-Calvinists; varying evangelistic methods; premillennial vs. postmillennial (I would add amillennial); Separate Baptist tradition merging and/or conflicting with Regular Baptist tradition; democrat and republican. The truth is, while Southern Baptists have squabbled over these issues and many others, we’ve miraculously survived any major split over these issues since the SBC was formed in mid-19th century. That’s quite an accomplishment by any measure! Because Southern Baptists are squarely within the free church tradition, it doesn’t take an exceptional IQ to fairly predict a number of theological squabbles.

It seems to me, a significant factor leading to Wilson’s confusion is failing to discern what those “young pastors and theologues with blogs” are most likely asserting with the use of a term which does not fit precisely what they actually mean, a term that possesses content from two generations ago. The term is Liberalism.

The term “Liberalism” is routinely employed in the vernacular–rightly or wrongly, appropriately or inappropriately, properly or improperly–as a comprehensive category to describe a theological notion, or in this case a theological trend, that is deviant, dangerous, and destructive of biblical faith. Think of it as a “catch-all” term. For example, I grew up calling all soda, Coke (and mostly still do!). Whether we had Pepsi, Orange Crush, or Sprite, we inevitably would say, “Let’s go get a Coke” or “Do you want a Coke?” never stopping to qualify it by saying “any kind of soda you want.”

Thus, while Wilson is technically correct that there’s hardly a drift toward Liberalism among Southern Baptists in the sense in which he explains, he shoots his arrow at the wrong target.

These “young pastors and theologues with blogs” are most likely not suggesting there’s overt issues in seminaries with denying the supernatural; rejecting the Bible as God-breathed; rejecting belief in Jesus as necessary for salvation; trending toward neo-orthodoxy; rejection of the new birth, or any number of other theological maladies associated with Liberalism two generations ago, the Liberalism Wilson rightly notes the Conservative Resurgence successfully dealt with from 1979-1993 when Al Mohler was installed as president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the last of the entities (if I recall correctly) whose trustee boards were purged of moderate/liberal majorities.

Rather the present complaint over Liberalism in the SBC–or Neo-liberalism perhaps–laments a strange, unbiblical focus on social justice, “wokeness,” critical race theory, cultural Marxism, kingdom now, same-sex attraction/sexual orientation acceptance, and social gospel elements that seem to swallow up Southern Baptists’ historic focus on global evangelism. Furthermore, while Wilson suggests since the squabbling in the SBC trends toward tribalism–that is, Calvinists vs non-Calvinists and premillennial vs. postmillennial–the solution should be understanding Baptists are “big-tent” oriented and thus we should all just learn to get along. What Wilson fails to grasp, however, is the issues rehearsed above being raised today are by no means tribal. Instead Calvinists and non-Calvinists are on the same page, for example. Founders Ministries, the largest network of Southern Baptist Calvinists in the United States,  joins without reservation Conservative Baptist Network, made up mostly of non-Calvinist members, in raising concerns about the “liberal” drift taking place within the SBC. They, along with thousands of other Southern Baptists from many so-called tribes, conclude, granting the issues listed above, the sufficiency of Scripture is at stake. If they are correct, then it would seem to follow that the Neo-liberalism lamented today would inevitably lead back full-circle tomorrow to the soul-destructing, Scripture-denying Liberalism which Wilson chuckles about being in the SBC today.

The question Wilson should have addressed was not “Is there theological liberalism in the SBC?” but “What do they mean by theological liberalism in the SBC?” To answer the first question was very easy, especially given Wilson’s tunnel-vision understanding of the term “Liberalism.” To answer the second question would involve examining the content of complaints, evidences, and testimonies, etc. The evidences are there. From long-time seminary professors like Russell Fuller who was dismissed at Southern Seminary for his dissent from critical race theory and social justice to the advancement at the same seminary of Matthew Hall, an apparent proponent of critical race theory (while Hall denies he advocates CRT, he failed to answer serious questions arising between his assertions and denials). Walter Strickland II, professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, appears at least partially dependent upon the principles of CRT in his study of Biblical Principles for Diversity and Reconciliation in Ministry.