Freedom and irresponsibility: fundamentalism's effect on academic freedom in Southern Baptist life.

Historically, Baptist attitudes toward academic freedom have been decidedly mixed. Arthur Walker described the Baptist attitude toward the academic arena as one of "ambivalence." (1)

Baptists have sensed an imperative to establish and support institutions of higher learning. Yet, Baptists appear not able to escape completely their underlying suspicion of education. This awkwardness between Baptists and higher education has existed at least since their earliest educational endeavors. One would thus be hard-pressed to argue that Baptist support for academic institutions has ever been unqualified.

In the particular case of Southern Baptists, the tension between the denomination and its academic communities escalated to unprecedented heights in the twentieth century as a result of the rise of fundamentalism. This tension found its most overt expression in the controversy that has been ongoing since 1979. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has moved from harboring a mild skepticism toward scholarship to enforcing a policy of placing direct and indirect limitations of academic freedom upon its academic institutions. The actions by the SBC have led to decreased diversity among the faculties of Southern Baptist schools, the exodus of several colleges and universities from Southern Baptist life, and the rise of a number of new institutions that provide alternatives to the Southern Baptist seminaries for students seeking graduate theological education. These events must be viewed against the background of traditional Baptist principles while taking into account the events that contributed to the present state of affairs in Southern Baptist academic life.

Baptist Skepticism of Academic Institutions

Dissonance between Baptist belief and Baptist practice has characterized the Baptist approach to academics. Ideals that have traditionally distinguished Baptists, such as religious freedom and soul competency, imply a predisposition in favor of academic freedom. Yet, in practice, Baptists have frequently been reluctant to embrace academic freedom in their educational institutions. In his discussion of theological education in Southern Baptist life, Daniel Aleshire observed three patterns mat emerged out of the early Baptist experience with education that have had a lasting influence:

   (1) a suspicion of the ability of an academic institution to instill
   or enhance criteria Baptists consider most crucial for their
   ministers; (2) a tendency to value the learning that comes from
   intimate participation in a congregation; and (3) a desire for the
   social recognition and status of higher education degrees. (2)

Herein lies the background for the tension that exists in the Baptist approach to higher education. This tension, more than anything else, has set the basic tone for interaction between Baptists and their schools.

Although Baptists, for the most part, have supported their academic institutions, skepticism of the academy has been present consistently in Baptist life. The earliest Baptist venture into the academic world came in 1679 with the establishment of Bristol College in England. (3) The climate in Baptist life at the time was not entirely conducive to the founding of such an institution. Leon McBeth cited the example of a treatise by Baptist minister Samuel How, The Sufficiency of the Spirit's Teaching without Humane Learning: or A Treatise Tending to Prove Humane Learning to be No Help to the Spiritual Understanding of the Word of God. (4) McBeth noted, however, that even in light of such opposition from certain factions, churches came to prefer an educated ministry for practical reasons. (5) Baptist suspicion of the academy thus may be linked to the earliest of its academic pursuits.

The situation was not entirely different in the case of Rhode Island College (later Brown University), the first Baptist college in America. Morgan Edwards, primary founder of Rhode Island College, wrote, "The first mover for it in 1762 was laughed at as a projector of a thing impracticable. Nay, many of the Baptists themselves discouraged the design (prophesying evil in the churches in case it should take place), from an unhappy prejudice against learning, and threatened (not only non-concurrence but) opposition." (6) The college's original charter provided for a diverse Board of Trustees with a Baptist majority, the purpose of which was to eliminate the possibility of denominational slanting. A more conservative group within the denomination, however, was able to amend the charter, making Rhode Island College more closely associated with the Baptists. (7) Although Baptists clearly placed sufficient value upon higher education to establish colleges, there were certainly those among them who rejected academics, which led to a situation of qualified academic freedom.

Academic Freedom and Baptist Principles

Theologically, Baptists have taken a position that is not particularly hostile to academic freedom as is evident in this entry on academic freedom in the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists:

   Academic freedom is both a condition and an attitude. It is a
   condition provided by the board of trustees and the administration
   of an educational institution in which the teacher has the
   opportunity to consider genuine options, popular or not, in pursuit
   of truth in his discipline. Therefore, it is a condition in which
   there is no pressure to conform to a given cultural, theological, or
   political party line.... Academic freedom is one of the most
   precious possessions of a democracy. Without it, propaganda and
   indoctrination take the place of free discussion and openness to new
   ideas. Academic freedom is, therefore, an essential element of an
   open society. (8)

This statement demonstrates that a compatibility between Baptist beliefs and practices and the defense of academic freedom. Specific principles that have distinguished Baptists further point to the compatibility of academic freedom with Baptist teachings.

One of the greatest contributions of Baptists has been their commitment to religious liberty for all people. Baptists have done much to apply this principle in praxis. According to Bill Leonard, early Baptists rejected the coercive methods employed by the Puritans to enforce their particular version of orthodoxy. (9) Baptists have traditionally rejected the imposition of any theological position upon any person by any authority. Leonard further noted that this rejection of authority included both political and ecclesiastical authorities. (10) This principle surely would apply also to the censure of scholars by their denominations. The Baptist commitment to religious liberty thus entails that academic freedom ought to be upheld.

Another distinctive Baptist principle is that of soul competency. Soul competency involves the freedom of individual Christians to interpret the Bible for themselves under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Leonard wrote of this principle:

   While Baptist "democracy" responds to the will of the majority, it
   should never seek to inhibit the voice of the lone prophets of
   dissent. Soul competency means that dissent is an inescapable
   element of the Baptist witness. Each person has the freedom to speak,
   even when outside the "norms" set by the majority. Orthodox
   majorities exiled Roger Williams, jailed Virginia Baptist preachers,
   and defended slavery by what they claimed to be the authority of the
   Holy Scripture. But the voice of dissent ultimately prevailed. (11)

Few forums exist in which individuals could more appropriately express such "dissent" than the college or seminary classroom, as the free exchange of diverse views is a primary function of an academic institution. There is no apparent justification for distinguishing between Southern Baptist educators and other believers with regard to their status as believer-priests. The Baptist principle of soul competency thus upholds the ideal of academic freedom.

Closely related to the ideas of religious liberty and soul competency is what Walter Shurden called "Bible freedom." Shurden defined it as "the historic Baptist affirmation that the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, must be central in the life of the individual and church and that Christians, with the best and most scholarly tools of inquiry, are both free and obligated to study and obey the scripture." (12) This freedom, limited only by the Lordship of Christ, exists for the purpose of fostering obedience to scripture and entails both being free from the restrictions inherent in a creedal system and having the individual freedom to engage in hermeneutics. (13) Shurden's statement indicates that academic freedom is inextricably linked to "Bible freedom" in the context of theological education.

The Baptist conviction is that freedom must be tempered by a measure of responsibility. James Taulman, in his analysis of this phenomenon, wrote that Baptists must find a middle path between irresponsible teaching and censorship. He noted, "those who teach must act responsibly; those in positions of control must grant freedom for them to act responsibly." (14) The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message reflected the same tension between freedom and responsibility. Its article on education stated:

   The cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with
   the causes of missions and general benevolence and should receive
   along with these the liberal support of the churches. An adequate
   system of Christian schools is necessary to a complete spiritual
   program for Christ's people.

   In Christian education there should be a proper balance between
   academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly
   relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The
   freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is
   limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative
   nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the
   school exists. (15)

Sharp distinctions exist, however, between the 1963 and the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. The 1925 statement on education stated:

   Christianity is the religion of enlightenment and intelligence. In
   Jesus Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
   All sound learning is therefore a part of our Christian heritage.
   The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for
   knowledge. An adequate system of schools is necessary to a complete
   spiritual program for Christ's people. The cause of education in the
   kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and
   general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal
   support of the churches. (16)

The 1963 confession clearly took a more conservative approach to academic freedom than its 1925 counterpart. Hankins Parker wrote of the 1963 statement: "The responsibility of a teacher is to teach truth. One who teaches should be free to teach and interpret truth, though truth, by its very nature, is confining and limited." (17) Even so, the 1963 statement, in viewing the teacher's freedom as being limited by the institution's purpose, went beyond responsibility to truth, and it also was in tension with earlier Baptist belief in that it went beyond the authority of scripture and the lordship of Christ in defining the limits of a believer's freedom. (18) Nevertheless, both statements generally supported higher education. Hence, the dissonance between Baptist belief and practice with regard to academic freedom becomes even more evident.

Southern Baptist Controversies

A number of controversies in Southern Baptist history emerged out of fundamentalist activity, and each of them raised the issue of academic freedom. Each controversy, according to Shurden, arose over questions of how to interpret the Bible, with particular reference to issues of its scientific and historical accuracy, rather than the authority of the Bible, which Baptists have never seriously questioned. (19)

By far the most significant of these threats to academic freedom emerged during the SBC controversy that began in 1979. Paige Patterson, then president of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, and Paul Pressler, an appeals court judge from Houston, led a movement to gain control of the SBC and steer its agencies toward an inerrantist position. (20) According to a May 1979 article in Baptist Press, "Paige Patterson of Dallas has confirmed reports that meetings have been held in at least 15 states in recent months to encourage messengers to attend the SBC in Houston, June 12-14, to elect a president committed to biblical inerrancy." (21) The article noted that a primary concern of the proponents of the movement was the presence of liberal professors in Southern Baptist academic institutions, particularly Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest University, and the University of Richmond. The plan to eliminate such liberalism involved electing an SBC president who would appoint inerrantists to the Committee on Committees as well as the Committee on Resolutions. The Committee on Committees, then, would nominate the boards of trustees for all SBC agencies, including the seminaries. (22) This effort were successful, and the 1979 Convention elected inerrantist Adrian Rogers as president. An unbroken series of repeat performances took place, and inerrantists have held the presidency of the SBC from 1979 to the present day. (23)

The 1980 SBC meeting produced the first convention action of this controversy, and the action had direct ramifications for academic freedom. The convention adopted a resolution on doctrinal integrity, which read, in part:

   Be it further Resolved, That we exhort the trustees of seminaries
   and other institutions affiliated with or supported by the Southern
   Baptist Convention to faithfully discharge their responsibility to
   carefully preserve the doctrinal integrity of our institutions and
   to assure that seminaries and other institutions receiving our
   support only employ, and continue the employment of, faculty members
   and professional staff who believe in the divine inspiration of the
   whole Bible, infallibility of the original manuscripts, and that the
   Bible is truth without any error. (24)

Borrowing language from the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, the resolution supported creating an academic environment that explicitly promoted a specific view of biblical inerrancy. The resolution represented a measure of official legitimization of restraints on academic freedom that was more binding than a confessional statement. At the same time, it represented a move toward using the 1963 confession as a creed. Grady Cothen noted, "We now had a group of ultraconservatives who were determined to adopt a creedal position that defined and limited the concept of being a Southern Baptist." (25)

Later that year, as it was becoming clear that momentum was in the fundamentalists' favor, Paul Pressler spoke with the Religious Herald and proclaimed:

   We are going for the Jugular. We are going for having knowledgeable,
   Bible-centered, Christ-honoring trustees at all of our institutions,
   who are not going to sit there like a bunch of dummies and rubber
   stamp everything that's presented to them, but who are going to
   inquire why this is being done, what is being taught, what is the
   finished product of our young people who come out of our
   institutions going to be. (26)

His statement was a less-than-veiled threat to seminary faculties that they were being watched. Pressler seemed determined to control the content of the teaching at these institutions. In a 1985 interview, Pressler stated, "My position is that the trustees should run the institutions responsive to the wishes of their constituency." (27) Coupled with statements by his colleague, Paige Patterson, such as "it is not bigotry to insist on doctrinal purity. It is not an infringement upon the academic freedom of our professors in Christian institutions to release them if they violate the plain teachings of the Bible," (28) Pressler's remarks represented a bleak forecast of things to come in Southern Baptist theological education. Patterson later stated:

   They [fundamentalists] do seek genuine parity in the faculties and
   administrations of the schools and insist that employees of the
   convention never, under any circumstances, call in to question any
   statement of the Bible or say anything that might be construed as
   disbelief in the veracity of the scriptures. (29)

Indeed, Charles Allen's characterization was that Patterson's theology was "faith seeking to overcome." (30)

Moderate leaders in Southern Baptist life responded to the fundamentalist movement in 1984. That year, Russell Dilday, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Roy Honeycutt, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, both criticized the fundamentalist movement in public orations. At the 1984 SBC meeting, Dilday preached his sermon "On Higher Ground." Championing the causes of soul competency and freedom of thought, he said:

   But unfortunately, in contradiction to the Bible, there are some
   among us who, fearful of standing alone, and determined to get ahead
   in denominational life, surrender that sacred privilege of
   individualism. They go along with the crowd, accepting the canned
   thinking of the majority. Swayed by public opinion, and glibly
   mouthing the popular cliches of the party in power, they are quick
   to espouse those causes that are in vogue. They cater to the
   powerful, play to the gallery, and flow with the tide.... But lost
   individualism is a two-sided coin. One side is fear of standing
   alone, but the other side is the refusal to let another person stand
   alone. (31)

Dilday's address was a scathing indictment of the fundamentalist practice of forcing seminary faculties to affirm a belief in biblical inerrancy. The same year, Honeycutt made a similar plea in his convocation address at Southern. He compared the controversy to an ancient Israelite holy war and then stated: "to every twentieth-century Judaizer now seeking to realign our convention and to purge our institutions, I say without apology, restraint, or hesitation: We shall not submit again to slavery's yoke." (32) Honeycutt blatantly rejected the idea that professors in Southern Baptist institutions should conform to any theological position:

   Unity does not mean uniformity, because you can't limit God. He
   established the boundaries of the Christian community with such
   breadth as to embrace our diversity within the larger unity created
   by the cosmic Christ. Thus, Christian unity does not drive diversity
   into exile, nor force it to live in the bondage of an ecclesiastical
   ghetto. Biblical unity absorbs our differences within a larger
   purpose discovered in Jesus Christ who is the Lord of History. (33)

Honeycutt's statement reflected the traditional position that academic responsibility was under the Lordship of Christ alone. His words constituted a bold and confrontational approach to fundamentalist policy.

As both sides continued to criticize one other, some observed the need for a forum for meaningful dialogue between fundamentalists and moderates. At the 1985 Dallas convention, twenty-two individuals were appointed to the Peace Committee, which was charged with the task of studying the factors that led to the fragmentation of the denomination and making recommendations as to how to remedy the problem. (34) The group, made up of moderates and fundamentalists, first met August 5-6, 1985. They sent out subcommittees to each of the seminaries to investigate what was being taught by their faculties, discovering that there was some diversity among the scholarship in those institutions beyond what the fundamentalists viewed as permissible. The committee worked for nearly two years and presented its final report to the 1987 convention. (35)

The six seminary presidents responded to these investigations with the Glorieta Statement, which was an attempt to establish some sort of common ground. (36) By producing it, the presidents hoped to assuage fundamentalist concerns about theological liberalism and heterodox practices in the seminaries. (37) In the statement, the presidents caved in to inerrantist pressure by affirming: "We believe that the Bible is fully inspired; it is 'God-breathed' (II Tim. 3:16), utterly unique. No other book or collection of books can justify that claim. The sixty-six books of the Bible are not errant in any area of reality. We hold to their infallible power and binding authority." (38) In response to the statement, moderate Peace Committee member Cecil Sherman resigned his position. He noted, "the statement made by the six seminary presidents sets a course for theological education in the SBC for years to come. What fundamentalists have wanted, the Peace Committee has helped them get." (39) Bill Leonard correctly observed that the inerrancy clause in the Glorieta Statement represented a fundamentalist victory of which the seminary presidents were well aware. (40) The statement was nothing short of a self-inflicted wound, a monumental capitulation with regard to academic freedom.

The Peace Committee's final report also showed evidence of a clear fundamentalist bias. The report reaffirmed the 1980 resolution on doctrinal integrity, added the claim that when the Bible speaks on matters of history and science it does so without error, and made the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message the official guideline for operations in Southern Baptist agencies. (41) A more recent Southern Baptist document, the report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee, was published in 1994. This report, while not claiming the need for a new confession of faith, affirmed the 1963 statement and upheld the Peace Committee report, including the Glorieta Statement. The Presidential Theological Study Committee did place some disturbing qualifications upon the principle of soul competency that consequently had direct import in matters of academic freedom:

   We affirm the priesthood of all believers and the autonomy of each
   local congregation. However, doctrinal minimalism and theological
   revision, left unchecked, compromises [sic] a commitment to the
   gospel itself. Being Baptist means faith as well as freedom.
   Christian liberty should not become a license for the masking of
   unbelief.... However, the priesthood of all believers is exercised
   within a committed community of fellow believers-priests [sic] who
   share a like precious faith. The priesthood of all believers should
   not be reduced to modern individualism nor used as a cover for
   theological relativism. (42)

The result of the SBC controversy has been a clear and deliberate narrowing of the Southern Baptist view of academic freedom, and, along with it, the ideas of religious liberty and soul competency.

Effects on Southern Baptist Educational Institutions

Fundamentalism has left a significant mark on the operations of Southern Baptist seminaries, colleges, and universities. The vast majority of infringements on academic freedom have taken place as a result of the current SBC controversy, a controversy that is unique due to its political nature. The fundamentalism, beginning in 1979, mounted what in effect was a political campaign to gain operational control of the denomination. As Shurden noted, "The unique things and the most dangerous thing is that now we have for the first time in the Southern Baptist Convention a highly-organized, apparently well-funded partisan political party who are going not only for the minds of the Southern Baptist people but for the machinery of the Southern Baptist Convention." (43)

Of all Southern Baptist academic institutions, the seminaries were the easiest targets for fundamentalists, and as a result, they have borne the brunt of the limitations that have been placed on academic freedom in Southern Baptist schools. One of the most blatant infringements took place at Southwestern Seminary with the firing of President Russell Dilday on March 9, 1994. (44) The day before, on March 8, Dilday received a glowing evaluation from the Board of Trustees. In that meeting with the trustees, Dilday asked about rumors of his termination that were circulating and was assured that the rumors were false. The next morning, however, he was offered a generous retirement package in exchange for his resignation. Dilday refused and asked upon what charges they would dismiss him. The reply was that they had the necessary votes and needed no reason. The trustees voted to fire Dilday, citing a need for new leadership for the next century, and they had him locked out of his office and denied him access to Southwestern's computer system the same day. The trustees had prepared two versions of the letter that students and faculty were to receive--one announcing Dilday's resignation, the other his termination. The termination letter was the one sent out, although a few of the retirement letters leaked by mistake. (45) The board's action was clearly political. Dilday was terminated because of his disagreement with the fundamentalist establishment. The chief administrative officer of the largest Southern Baptist educational institution was fired for his theological convictions.

If Southwestern has the distinction of suffering one of the most overt breaches of academic freedom, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has the distinction of suffering some of the first breaches of academic freedom. In the 1980s, the seminary had a reputation of being liberal and became a major target for the fundamentalists. By 1987, a majority of Southeastern's Board of Trustees were fundamentalists.

President Randall Lolley was outspoken in his opposition to the inerrantist cause, arguing the Bible's perfection as alluded to in the Baptist Faith and Message lay in its message rather than in its minutia. (46) The board moved to alter the seminary's procedures for selection of faculty, taking the selection of visiting and adjunct professors out of the hands of the faculty, dean, and president, and placing that selection in their own hands. Their intent was to hire only those who were of fundamentalist persuasion. (47) Within a short time, President Lolley and Dean Morris Ashcraft resigned. The trustees then chose Lewis Drummond to succeed Lolley.

The ongoing turmoil at Southeastern prompted an investigation by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS). ATS discovered severe problems with the way in which the trustees had circumvented the input of the faculty, noting that academic freedom and institutional integrity were endangered, and the seminary was found to be in violation of ATS standards. Even amid the troubles with ATS, the trustees plowed ahead, inserting a statement on inerrancy into the seminary's purpose statement and establishing a policy in which belief in inerrancy became a prerequisite to being appointed to the Southeastern faculty. ATS placed Southeastern on academic probation in 1991. Drummond soon left the seminary, and Paige Patterson was chosen as his replacement in October 1992. (48) Patterson held the position that because Southern Baptists were conservatives, seminaries were obligated to reflect those views. While agreeing that seminary students should learn about liberal theology, he insisted that they be told why it fails. (49)

The situation was not altogether different at Southern Seminary. The fundamentalists attacked President Roy Honeycutt and various faculty members, accusing them of heresy. (50) Glenn Hinson, Molly Marshall, Frank Tupper, and Paul Simmons were among the faculty members who were targets. (51) In response to the Peace Committee's report, Southern's Board of Trustees altered their standards for the hiring of faculty members, making inerrancy a key criterion. (52) ATS soon began an investigation, sending a committee to Southern to look into these developments. Southern officials, in an attempt to avoid an accreditation crisis, adopted the "Covenant Renewal between Trustees, Faculty, and Administration." The document set out the decision-making role of the trustees, the organizational role of the administration, and the implementing and teaching roles of the faculty. It also stipulated the need for adequate attention to be paid to conservative views and upheld the principle of academic freedom and responsibility. In 1993, Honeycutt retired and was replaced by Albert Mohler. (53) Since becoming president of Southern, Mohler has called for a theological consensus consisting of a set of commonly accepted theological boundaries by which SBC agencies and institutions must abide, and he has further stated that persons connected with Southern must affirm the inerrancy of scripture and reject process and feminist theology. (54)

In 1986, the fundamentalists moved against Temp Sparkman, a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Sparkman had expressed ideas that suggested a soteriology that differed from the standard Baptist notion of the conversion experience. As a result, he was labeled by some as a universalist. Fundamentalists saw him as a classic example of a liberal SBC seminary professor. Sparkman denied the charges, and Midwestern's Board of Trustees affirmed his orthodoxy by a 2-1 margin--a rare victory for moderates in the midst of the controversy. (55) At Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, the academic dean, Robert Cate, came under fire for his views on biblical authorship. Care later left the seminary. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor Fisher Humphreys received criticism from Paul Pressler and the fundamentalists for his book, The Death of Christ. After an investigation by New Orleans president Landrum Leavell, no action was taken against Humphreys. (56)

Fundamentalists had considerably more difficulty exerting their influence on Southern Baptist colleges and universities. These institutions are under the jurisdiction of the various Baptist state conventions, which fundamentalists were not able to infiltrate as quickly or efficiently as they were the national organization. (57) A 1993 study on academic freedom in Southern Baptist colleges, however, found evidence of fundamentalist-related turmoil at various institutions including Mercer University, Missouri Baptist College, Baylor University, and Samford University. The study found that fundamentalists have managed to exert subtle influence over Baptist colleges by creating an atmosphere that is sufficiently uncomfortable to affect what goes on in classrooms. The net result was a restriction on academic freedom in these institutions, a restriction of which many faculty members were largely unaware due their desensitization and acceptance of the subtle limits that restrained them. (58)

Two major developments in Southern Baptist colleges in response to fundamentalist endeavors have been the withdrawal of several institutions from the influence of their state conventions and the establishment of new graduate theological programs to provide alternatives to SBC seminaries. Stetson University in Florida, Furman University in South Carolina, Wake Forest University in North Carolina, and Baylor University in Texas have withdrawn from state denominational control. (59) The second development, the building of new seminaries and divinity schools, has resulted in a dramatic increase in opportunities for diversity in Baptist theological education. The earliest new school to be organized was the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, which began holding classes in the fall of 1991. Another of the early new schools was proposed by Baylor University's President Herbert Reynolds. His proposal resulted in the George W. Truett Theological Seminary being incorporated in 1991, with classes beginning in August 1994. (60) In response to the situation at Southeastern, a Baptist studies program was begun at Duke University Divinity School, and new divinity schools were established at Gardner-Webb University, Campbell University, and Wake Forest University. (61)

What becomes clear is that the fundamentalists who seized control of the SBC have done unprecedented damage to academic freedom. While it is true that Baptists have never practiced unqualified academic freedom, whatever limitations previously existed pale in comparison to the policies that were enacted by fundamentalists in the late twentieth century. The augmentation of long-standing Baptist principles, most importantly soul competency and religious liberty, and a steady movement from confessionalism toward creedalism, have contributed to the problem. The leadership of the SBC need both to hear and to heed the words of John Newport in his 1989 Hobbs lecture at Oklahoma Baptist University: "Biblical people should hold and witness to their ultimate religious convictions with a sufficient degree of humility to allow them to live peacefully with those who have other convictions." (62)

(1.) Arthur L. Walker, "Southern Baptist College and University Education," Baptist History and Heritage 29, no. 2 (April 1994): 16.

(2.) Daniel O. Aleshire, "Southern Baptist Theological Education," Baptist History and Heritage 29, no. 2 (April 1994): 5.

(3.) H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 120.

(4.) Ibid., 193.

(5.) Ibid.

(6.) Morgan Edwards, Materials Towards a History of the Baptists, 2 vols., eds. Eve B. Weeks and Mary B. Warren (Danielsville, GA: n.p., 1984), 1:191-96, in A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, ed. H. Leon McBeth (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990): 144.

(7.) McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 237-38.

(8.) Penrose St. Amant, "Academic Freedom," Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, 3 (1971): 1553.

(9.) Bill J. Leonard, "Varieties of Freedom in the Baptist Experience," Baptist History and Heritage 25, no. 1 (January 1999): 4.

(10.) Ibid., 5.

(11.) Ibid., 11.

(12.) Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, 1993), 9.

(13.) Ibid., 19-18.

(14.) James E. Taulman, "Freedom and Responsibility in Baptist Life," Baptist History and Heritage 25, no. 1 (January 1990): 16.

(15.) "The Baptist Faith and Message," Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1963, 269-81, in A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, ed. H. Leon McBeth (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 514-15.

(16.) Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1925, 74.

(17.) Hankins Parker, What Southern Baptists Believe (Louisville: Park Hurst Publishers, 1988), 121.

(18.) As McBeth notes in his editorial introduction, both the 1925 and 1963 confessions are the results of fundamentalist controversies. In particular, the 1963 confession emerged out of the Elliott controversy, in which academic freedom was a major issue.

(19.) Walter B. Shurden, "The Inerrancy Debate: A Comparative Study of Southern Baptist Controversies," Baptist History and Theology 16, no. 2 (April 1981): 15.

(20.) For a detailed discussion of inerrancy, see Carl L. Kell and Raymond Camp, In the Name of the Father: The Rhetoric of the New Southern Baptist Convention (Carbondale: Southern University of Illinois Press, 1999).

(21.) Toby Druin, "Groups Meet in 15 States to Push SBC President," Baptist Press, 9 May 1979, n.p., in Theological Educator, Special Issue (1985): 11.

(22.) Ibid., 12.

(23.) Walter B. Shurden, "In Defense of the SBC: The Moderate Response to Fundamentalism," Theological Educator, Special Issue (1985): 11.

(24.) "Resolution on Doctrinal Integrity" Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1980, 51 in Grady C. Cothen, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1993), 110.

(25.) Grady C. Cothen, The New SBC: Fundamentalism's Impact on the Southern Baptist Convention (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, 1995), 121.

(26.) Tom Miller, "Committee Appointments the Key," The Religious Herald, 18 Sept. 1980, 8-10, in Going for the Jugular: A Documentary of the SBC Holy War, eds. Walter Shurden and Randy Shepley (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 56.

(27.) "An Interview with Judge Paul Pressler," Theological Educator, Special Issue (1985): 19.

(28.) Paige Patterson, Living in Hope of Eternal Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 28, quoted in Charles W Allen, "Paige Patterson: Contender for Baptist Sectarianism," Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 107.

(29.) Paige Patterson, "Stalemate," Theological Educator, Special Issue, (1985): 10.

(30.) Charles W. Allen, "Paige Patterson: Contender for Baptist Sectarianism," Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 108.

(31.) Russell Dilday, "On Higher Ground," SBC Convention Sermon, 13 June 1984, in Shurden and Shepley, Going for the Jugular, 113.

(32.) Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr., "To Your Tents O Israel!" Southern Seminary Convocation Address, August 1984, in Shurden and Shepley, Going for the Jugular, 126.

(33.) Ibid., 129.

(34.) Jesse C. Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention: A Sesquicentennial History (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 284.

(35.) Bill J. Leonard, God's Last and Only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 144.

(36.) Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention, 286.

(37.) Leonard, God's Last and Only Hope, 145.

(38.) "Peace Committee Report," Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1987, 232-42, in McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, 528.

(39.) Dan Martin, "Sherman Resigns Peace Committee," Baptist Press, 24 October 1986, 5-6, in Shurden and Shepley, Going for the Jugular, 197.

(40.) Leonard, God's Last and Only Hope, 145.

(41.) "Peace Committee Report," 531, 535.

(42.) "Report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee," Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1994, 112-18, in Jeff B. Pool, Against Returning To Egypt: Exposing and Resisting Creedalism in the Southern Baptist Convention (Macon, CA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 314, 319.

(43.) Shurden, "Inerrancy," 18.

(44.) Grady C. Cothen, The New SBC: Fundamentalism's Impact on the Southern Baptist Convention (Macon, CA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, 1995), 101.

(45.) Cothen, The New SBC, 101-03.

(46.) Leonard, God's Last and Only Hope, 157-58.

(47.) Cothen, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? 284-85, 287.

(48.) Ibid., 286-95.

(49.) David T. Morgan, The New Crusades, The New Holy Land: Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention 1969-1991 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996), 132, 140.

(50.) Cothen, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? 297.

(51.) Morgan, The New Crusades, 136.

(52.) Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention, 311.

(53.) Cothen, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? 303-06.

(54.) Pool, Against Returning To Egypt, 146-47.

(55.) Leonard, God's Last and Only Hope, 156.

(56.) Cothen, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? 315.

(57.) Morgan, The New Crusades, 142.

(58.) Larry C. Ingram, Robert Thornton, and Renee L. Edwards, "Perceptions of Academic Freedom in Baptist Colleges," in Southern Baptist Observed: Multiple Perspectives on a Changing Denomination (Nashville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993), 223, 234-35.

(59.) Morgan, The New Crusades, 144-45; Walker, "Southern Baptist College and University Education," 21-22.

(60.) Morgan, The New Crusades, 147.

(61.) Thomas H. Graves, "The History of Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond," in The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC, ed. Walter Shurden (Macon, CA: Mercer University Press, 1993), 188. Other schools have also been established, including McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University, Logsdon School of Theology at Hardin-Simmons University, the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky, and the John Leland Center for Theological Studies.

(62.) John Newport, "The Postmodern World, the Baptist Vision, and the Christian University," in The Fibers of Our Faith, vol. 1, ed. Dick Allen Rader (Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1995): 188.

Derek E. Wittman is a doctoral student at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.