Talk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archived discussions for the years 2007 and 2008. Note: discussions may have been refactored.

Summary

Much of the discussions during this period of time dealt with how to explain the subject in neutral ways, adhering to Wikipedia policy. One area of discussion was what terms should be used to identify the groups involved in the events which are the subject of the article. Terms like liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, reasserter, and ultraconservative were weighed for their neutrality.

Ongoing or Settled Controversy?

I wonder how accurate it is to describe this controversy as something current and on-going. It seems that the controversy has been settled decisively (for better or for worse) in favor of the "conservative-er" faction. The Alliance of Baptists pulled out and the CBF pulled out and in doing so the great bulk of the moderate (and the handful of truely liberal) congregations withdrew from the SBC. All the presidents have been conservative for some time now, all the seminary presidents are conservative, the overwhelming bulk of the seminary staff are conservative-- it seems to me that the fight is over. Is England involved in an "ongoing" controversy because a couple centuries back the American colonies rebelled? Eugeneacurry 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. However, with large, strong, influential groups such as CBF and BGCT not (yet) being denominations and still considering themselves Southern Baptist, it's too early to say it's over, and it is far from settled. The SBC controversy is very much ongoing. I believe history would call the American Revolution an ongoing struggle during its first century. Thanks for your labor on this very important article. Afaprof01 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What level of resolution is neccesary to determine that the controversy is indeed concluded? Will the SBC have to be stridently conservative for 30 years, 40 years, or a full century? You mention the CBF and say that it is not a denomination but it most certainly is by the so-called duck test. The CBF has its own seminaries, funds its own missionaires, is a member of the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches, has no formal parent body, etc, etc, etc. True, there are some churches (First Baptist Church of Richmond, VA) that are dual alligned with the SBC and the CBF but then again there are churches that are dual aligned with both the SBC and the ABC-USA (First Baptist Church of San Francisco, CA). Are the American baptists not a denomination? Eugeneacurry 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

POV statement in the Introduction

To say that the conservatives removed theologically moderate leaders from positions of power within SBC agencies is entirely true and fair. But to go further and say that conservatives removed theologically moderate AND "methodologically democratic" leadership is nonsense and polemical. The very article [1] cited to support this serious accusation itself refutes the charge. How did the conservatives take control? By effecting a bloody coup? By manipulating the legal system to their advantage? No, as the cited reference says, "The most basic idea underly [sic] Pressler's strategy was for the fundamentalists to successfully elect presidents from year to year... The fundamentalists basically brought more people to vote than there were moderates and as a result fundamentalist Adrian Rogers won the presidency in 1979... The messengers who attended the convention elected the president of the SBC. The fundamentalists simply had to go to fundamentalist churches and convince people to attend and vote for their desired president... 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 fundamentalists won over the majority of these people because they were such excellent speakers." Winning elections, getting out the vote, persuasion through speeches-- this all sounds highly democratic to me. Eugeneacurry 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a highly biased article against the conservative camp. It needs major work. Theriddles 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article takes the viewpoint of some sort of hostile coup when, as another commenter said, the Criswell group brought more people/congregations to vote. Instead of 'take over', the term 'reform' or another more neutral term would be better to make the viewpoint more neutral. 216.47.92.40 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in Pressler link

This article's link associated with Houston Judge Paul Pressler is clearly wrong. It takes you to the Wikipedia article on Paul S. Pressler who is the recent president and CEO of Gap and also a past president of Walt Disney. These two men are so different this mistake is laughable. For examples, Paul S. Pressler is a New York native, a liberal Democrat, and his former employer Walt Disney corporation was one of the strongest supporters of gay rights during his tenure there. In contrast, Judge Paul Pressler is a Texas native, a conservative Republican and one of the staunchest opponents of gay rights imaginable.

In case there is any doubt these are two different men, here are their comparative bios I just harvested off the Internet.

Paul S. Pressler

Born: 1956

Gender: Male Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Business Party Affiliation: Democratic

Nationality: United States Executive summary: CEO of Gap, 2002-07

Wife: Mindy (two children)

University: BS Business Economics, State University of New York at Oneonta (1978) Gap President and CEO (2002-07) Disney Chairman of Parks & Resorts Division Disneyland President of Disneyland Resorts (1998-2002) Disneyland President of Disneyland Parks and Hotels (1994-98) Disney EVP and GM Disney Stores (1992-94) Disney Senior VP Consumer Products (1990-92) Disney Senior VP of Disney Licensing (1987-90) Kenner Parker Toys VP Marketing & Design (1982-87) Member of the Board of Avon (2005-) Member of the Board of Gap (2002-) Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Board of Directors The Business Council Children Affected by AIDS Foundation

In contrast:

Judge Paul Pressler - CNP President Executive Committee 1988-90, member 1984, 1996, 1998; justice, Texas Court of Appeals, retired; former member, Texas Legislature; practiced law for 12 years at Vinson and Elkins; appointed District Judge, 1970; appointed Justice, Texas Court of Appeals, 1978; active in conservative movement in the Southern Baptist Convention; board member, KHCB (Christian radio); member, Texas Philosophical Society; Southern Baptist Convention, Boys Country, Salvation Army; Phillips Exeter Academy; graduate, Princeton University.

Member of National Religious Broadcasters Board of Directors, current or past> See: The 2005 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention With Focus On Mel Gibson's The Passion Recut and also see: The 2005 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention With Focus On Michael Rood

For further information about Judge Paul Pressler and his role in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, see Judge Paul Pressler, A Hill on Which to Die (Nashville: Broadman & Holdman, 1999). 66.245.126.145 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberal or Moderate & Conservative or Reactionary

The whole tug-of-war between those preferring the labels liberal/conservative and those prefering moderate/reactionary (or ultraconservative) in this article is getting a little stale. Can't we come to some kind of reasonable agreement? It seems to me that many of the people who left to found the Alliance of Baptist are very deserving of the title liberal while the majority of the CBF is not. Likewise, those on the other side of the dispute were certainly all conservatives but I think the term ultra-conservative really doesn't fit for many of us. so how about a compromise? Lets call the Alliance liberal, the CBF moderate and recognize that there is a spectrum of conservatism in the current SBC leadership. Eugeneacurry 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. That is an excellent distinction. Would you be so kind as to apply that algorithm to this article? Afaprof01 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Patterson a Revisionist?

The article states that Paige Patterson is a "revisionist theologian" without citing any sources. What criteria are being used to make this assessment? Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

It seems to me that the "Strategy for Takeover" and "How It Worked" sections overlap quite a bit. Any opinions? Eugeneacurry (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.10.1 (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the redundancy you describe would benefit from cleanup. Afaprof01 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

This article does not meet Wikipedia Policies Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle and a non-negotiable policy. It makes blatant accusations, false characterizations, and uses unbiased labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmitchell (talk • contribs) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed Section Heading

I renamed sections "A strategy for takeover" and "The takeover" to "The conservative strategy" and "The 'Controversy'" respectively for POV reasons. Some would consider what happened a "takeover", but others would consider it a "resurgence". I believe these are nuetral titles. Ltwin (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

This article does an awful lot of labeling this and that as "fundamentalist." Aside from POV issues, it is not even good style to use one such a label over and over-- all the more when "fundamentalist" is a fairly misunderstood term.--Carlaude ^(talk) 02:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)