Round two, volume one: the Broadman commentary controversy.

Southern Baptists began the 1960s embroiled in a serious conflict concerning the biblical book of Genesis and ended the decade in the same manner.

In the first conflict, some Southern Baptists attacked The Message of Genesis, a book by Ralph Elliott, who was a professor at the fledgling Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Elliott interpreted the first eleven chapters of Genesis utilizing a parabolic and symbolic methodology. He suggested that the first eleven chapters of Genesis dealt with theological issues and not literal history. Elliott's book evoked a significant controversy that lasted from 1961 until 1963. Although attempts were made to ban the book and oust Elliott from his teaching position, the book was not banned, and Elliott was not dismissed due to his theological views. He was removed from his teaching position because he refused to agree to an administrative directive not to seek republication of his book.

Southern Baptists who were critical of Elliott's views were disturbed that Elliott's ouster was not based on his theological views but on a technicality. Supporters of Elliott felt that his removal was a huge blow to academic freedom. To keep peace and avoid schism in the convention, Southern Baptist statesmen led the convention to adopt a new confession of faith in 1963. Baptists rallied around the confession and for the moment schism was avoided, but peace for Southern Baptists was ephemeral. (1)

Only six years later, Southern Baptists found themselves in another major Genesis conflict. In October 1969, volume 1 of The Broadman Bible Commentary was published by Broadman Press, the book publishing arm of the Baptist Sunday School Board (BSSB). There would eventually be twelve volumes in all covering the entire Bible. The first volume contained nine general articles on the Bible and an exposition of the book of Genesis by English Baptist scholar G. Henton Davies and of Exodus by Roy L. Honeycutt, who was then professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. (2) A segment of Southern Baptists, who had been at odds with the publishing policies of the Board during much of the 1960s, objected to the volume almost immediately. Most of the controversy, however, centered around statements made by Davies in the first volume concerning the story of how Abraham came close to sacrificing his son Isaac as recorded in Genesis 22:1-19. The controversy became especially severe during the 1970 annual convention meeting in Denver where Southern Baptists adopted a motion to withdraw volume 1. The conflict basically ended at the 1972 convention meeting when messengers defeated a motion to withdraw the complete commentary.

An examination of the Broadman Commentary controversy provides insight into the Southern Baptist milieu of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In an era in which Southern Baptist life was becoming more complex and diverse, it is no surprise that theological tension would arise. What is astonishing is how Southern Baptists, equipped with a noncentralized convention polity, sought to resolve the conflict. This study will explore the diverse approaches of various Southern Baptists to Genesis, examine how Baptists addressed the theological controversy, and will note significant results of the controversy.

A Commentary Is Born

By 1950, Clifton J. Allen, editorial secretary at the BSSB and William J. Fallis, head of the Book Editorial Department at the BSSB, were in serious discussion about the possibility of producing a commentary on the Bible to be published by Broadman Press. (3) In a series of meetings stretching from July 1961 until 1968, plans were made and carried out to publish a multi-volume commentary to be completed by 1970. Broadman Press personnel determined that the commentary would be directed toward ministers and serious lay students; that it would be designed to reach a general audience, irrespective of denominational identity and interest; and that it would utilize historical-critical methodologies in treating biblical texts. (4) At the same time, the commentary would be committed to the

   theological assumptions of supernatural religion,
   the unique and inspired nature of biblical revelation,
   the redemptive activity of God in Christ, the
   lordship of Christ in the world, the reality of
   salvation from sin, and the certainty of Christian
   hope. (5)

Broadman Press personnel refused to label the project as a conservative, moderate, or progressive publication. Rather, General Editor Clifton Allen and his associates, Joseph Green and William Fallis, decided that the writers would express several theological views where there was diversity of opinion. After an objective discussion of the text, the writer could insert his own personal view as long as he was objective and did not appear condescending toward anyone who might disagree. (6)

By 1967, most of the writers were enlisted. Although fifty-six of the sixty-four contributors enlisted were Southern Baptists, four writers from England and four from the American Baptist Convention were asked to write articles based on their reputation as competent biblical scholars and their long identification with Baptist life. Allen defended the choice of writers to some members of the plans and policies committee of the BSSB who expressed serious concern about some of the writers enlisted, especially ones who were not Southern Baptists. He argued that the selection of writers was wholly in keeping with the Baptist tradition that emphasized the competence and responsibility of persons to think for themselves, to be free to differ in their doctrinal interpretations, to engage in open debate of scriptural texts, and to reject "an authoritarian, official, creedal, stereo-typed formulation of the truth of the biblical revelation." (7) Allen added that writers were selected due to their reputation as devout Christians and competent biblical scholars who offered balanced theological viewpoints. (8)

Work on the commentary was in full swing by 1968. In October 1969, volumes 1 (Genesis-Exodus) and 8 (Matthew-Mark) were published by Broadman Press, whose editors knew from the beginning that no commentary would receive unanimous endorsement from Southern Baptists. Broadman Press personnel did not expect, however, the furor that arose in the convention concerning the first volume. Preliminary surveys had revealed that five out of eight readers of the first two volumes offered favorable responses as to content and approach. (9)

Criticism of Volume 1

Criticism of volume 1 began in December 1969. Volume 8, which contained general articles as well as an exposition of the books of Matthew and Mark, did not come under scrutiny. Although the first volume was criticized generally, the major objection to the initial volume was restricted to Davies's treatment of Genesis, particularly his interpretation of Genesis 22:1-19, also a controversial section in Ralph Elliott's book. In his treatment of the passage, Davies acknowledged that some persons interpreted literally God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Davies, however, rejected the idea that God literally commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He asked, "Indeed what Christian or humane conscience could regard such a command as coming from God?" (10) Davies declared that Abraham's conviction that Isaac must be sacrificed "is the climax of the psychology of his life." (11) The discovery of the ram trapped in the thicket was the "solvent of his own mistaken conviction and his release into the fulness [sic] of the God-given conviction about himself." (12)

Ironically, the earliest published criticism of the first volume came from Clark Pinnock. Pinnock, who had earlier taught theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, was at the time teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Bannockburn, Illinois. (13) Today, Pinnock is in a different place theologically than he was when he voiced his criticisms. He is associated with a group of evangelical scholars who embrace the so-called Open View of God's relationship to the future. (14) Nevertheless, in the December 5, 1969, issue of Christianity Today, Pinnock attacked volume 1 because it reflected what he deemed negative critical theories of the Old Testament. Pinnock lambasted Clifton Allen's introductory article because Allen rejected "verbal and plenary inspiration" in favor of an imprecise dynamic theory. Pinnock also urged others to speak out against the commentary. (15) In a letter written in October 1969 to a number of conservative Southern Baptists friends, Pinnock insisted that The Broadman Bible Commentary was more of a threat to biblical infallability than Elliott's book. Therefore, conservatives should take a stand against the commentary before it was too late and liberalism had overtaken the convention. He added that the issues must be grasped and published abroad. (16)

On the heels of Pinnock's Christianity Today critique came a review in the Sword and the Trowel, a small paper that was affiliated with a number of conservative quasi-political organizations, several of which were associated with M. O. Owens, a North Carolina pastor who was a leader of Baptists United for Spiritual Revival and the Fellowship of Conservative Baptists. (17) Many of the leaders of the Fellowship later organized the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship. This latter organization became a nationwide movement and received great notoriety as members of the group strenuously opposed the The Broadman Bible Commentary. (18) The editor of the Sword and the Trowel was Gerald Primm, a friend of Pinnock's, who stated that he formed the paper to rally forces against liberalism in the SBC, especially the many professors in Southern Baptist schools who were leading Southern Baptists to continue the "down grade road." (19)

As far as reaching the average Southern Baptist, editors and contributing writers of Baptist state papers were most influential in fanning the flames of controversy. At least ten of twenty-nine Baptist state papers editorialized against volume 1. Many of the same editors who had denounced Elliott were ready to battle again. The first editor to question the commentary was Ross Edwards, editor of Missouri's Word and Way. Edwards, an outspoken critic of Elliott, attacked Davies's interpretation of Genesis 22 in January 1970. Criticizing "some theologians" who never emphasized the great truths of the Bible without raising doubts, Edwards insisted that Davies's writings were not suitable for a mighty army marching forth to victory. According to Edwards, Davies's thinking would empty the churches and the mission fields. Edwards characterized Davies's interpretation as "death in the pot." (20) This phrase, which refers to a passage from 2 Kings 4:40, had surfaced in the Elliott Controversy as well. (21) Edwards stated that Southern Baptists could not grow on the diet Davies has offered. "I'm not prepared to eat it. How about you?" Edwards asked. (22)

Following Edwards's editorial, a number of other Baptist state paper editors joined in the attack. Jack Gritz, editor of Oklahoma's Baptist Messenger, described how he was deeply disturbed and sick at heart as he read volume 1, especially Davies's treatment of Genesis 22. Gritz claimed that Davies rejected the truth of the Bible and that his attitude toward the Bible was not the kind of attitude that "builds churches and wins souls and strengthens Christians for life." (23) Gritz told his readers not to waste their money buying or waste their time reading volume 1. (24)

Joe Odle of Mississippi's Baptist Record objected to the commentary's rejection of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the use of the historical-critical method of "liberal scholarship," especially the documentary theory. (25) Odle questioned a number of Davies's interpretations including the Abraham-Isaac incident. He concluded his critique by warning his readers that if the first volume revealed what young preachers were being taught, then the authority of the Bible as the infallible Word of God would soon cease to be a Baptist distinctive. (26) C. Eugene Whitlow, editor of New Mexico's Baptist New Mexican, editorialized against volume 1, especially Davies's treatment of Genesis 22, from February until May 1970. Whitlow argued that Davies's interpretation contradicted "our statement of faith," because it cast a cloud over a clear divine directive. (27)

In addition to editors of Baptist state papers, several articles appeared in Baptist state papers written by prominent conservatives who were unhappy with volume 1. In March 1970, J. Wash Watts, a former professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in Tennessee's Baptist and Reflector that Davies's interpretation of Genesis 22 "casts dark doubt on the word of the Bible." (28) Watts questioned whether or not Southern Baptists could remain loyal to their confession of faith in the inspiration of the Bible and promote a treatment that abuses it. (29)

A week after Watts's article, K. Owen White wrote in Arizona's Baptist Beacon that he was disappointed that the exposition of Genesis was assigned to a British writer who subscribed fully to the documentary theory. White called special attention to Davies's treatment of the Abraham-Isaac event as an example of Davies's liberalism. White accused Davies of setting aside the plain teaching of Scripture in favor of his own ideas. (30)

Favorable Reviews

The Broadman Bible Commentary was not without support. Before any significant criticism of the first volume appeared, Wayne Dehoney, a former convention president, praised the volume for its reverent scholarship, enlightening interpretation, and practical exposition. His review appeared in Facts and Trends, a publication of the BSSB, and predicted that the entire commentary would become the most valuable and most used resource in the library of the "preaching-teaching" pastor. (31) Dehoney lauded the commentary for its balanced conservative and evangelical stance that avoided the theological extremes. (32) In November 1969, Robert Alley, a professor at the University of Richmond, wrote in Virginia's Religious Herald that by publishing volume one the Sunday School Board had vindicated Crawford Toy and Ralph Elliott and had rejected the views espoused by W. A. Criswell. Alley especially praised the general articles as revealing sound scholarship and a regular acceptance of the historical-critical method of biblical study. (33)

A positive review of volumes 1 and 8 appeared in the Alabama Baptist in December 1969. Walter G. Nunn, an Alabama pastor, stated that the volumes would be successful in helping persons know God's truth as it is revealed in the Scripture. Nunn characterized the theological approach of the commentary as middle of the road. (34) C. R. Daley, editor of Kentucky's Western Recorder, was among a handful of editors who defended the commentary against critics. In April 1970, he wrote that some disagreement over interpretation was an expected part of such a project. The only way to satisfy every critic, contended Daley, would be to let each person write his own commentary. Concerning Davies's treatment of Genesis 22 and the issues raised by his critics, Daley asserted that it was the same old story of literalism versus nonliteralism. Daley denied that Davies's interpretation was contrary to the 1963 statement of faith. He maintained that Davies and his critics simply held different views of biblical inspiration. (35)

In the same issue, the Western Recorder carried an explanation from James Sullivan, executive-secretary of the BSSB, as to why The Broadman Bible Commentary was published. Sullivan praised the contributors to the commentary as competent and reverent scholars. He claimed that a commentary that simply repeated traditional interpretations and ignored the results of "current biblical scholarship would command little interest and have little value." (36) Although Sullivan did not specifically defend Davies's treatment of Genesis 22 in this article, in 1974, he wrote that few, if any, of the critics realized that Davies was dealing with the question of the consistency of God as he sought to harmonize the Abraham-Isaac incident with verses in the New Testament that claim that God tempts no person. (37)

Preconvention Meetings

Although support for the commentary was not superabundant, criticism of it continued until just before the annual SBC meeting held in Denver, Colorado, in June 1970. Before the convention met, however, about 1,100 Baptists, mostly pastors, met at the First Baptist Church of Denver for a meeting called by its organizers the Affirming the Bible Conference. Ross Edwards of Missouri organized the conference to let liberals in the convention know that "there is a limit to our patience" and "to put up our flag for the trustworthiness of the Scriptures." (38) Before the conference convened, editor Daley wrote that it would likely be damaging and divisive to the convention fellowship at such a critical time in the life of the denomination. Daley stated that the conference was essentially a rally designed to champion a narrow view of biblical interpretation and should be called an "Affirming the Bible According to our Interpretation Conference." (39)

Edwards's opening address set the tone for the conference as he stated that "if the interpretation of Genesis in The Broadman Bible Commentary goes unchallenged, we owe an apology to Ralph Elliott." (40) Nearly every speaker who followed Edwards either criticized the commentary or the BSSB explicitly or implicitly. (41) After the conference adjourned, about two hundred individuals gathered at the conference site to air grievances and plot convention strategy. Several resolutions against the commentary and the Christian Life Commission (CLC) were hatched. (42) The CLC was under fire because of past stances that some Southern Baptists perceived to be liberal. Some Baptists were especially troubled about a controversial morality seminar held in March 1970 in Atlanta that the commission had sponsored. (43)

Although the Affirming the Bible Conference was effective in galvanizing support against the The Broadman Bible Commentary, James Sullivan later claimed that it was a message at the preconvention pastor's conference by Arkansas pastor W. O. Vaught that contributed most to the rejection by convention messengers of volume 1. (44) Although the program committee of the pastor's conference had sought to avoid the introduction of controversial issues at the conference and had so alerted program personnel, Vaught, after reading volume 1 prior to the pastor's conference, discarded his first sermon and decided to preach on Genesis 22. (45) Vaught's message was a direct challenge to Davies's interpretation. Vaught asserted that God did ask Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice as a test, not a temptation, to see if he would obey God. He told his audience that the sweetest things of the Christian faith were involved in the events that transpired upon Mount Moriah. When Abraham saw the ram in the thicket, Vaught declared, "it was a faint picture of coming attractions, for on that spot the Lamb of God would be offered for our redemption." (46)

Denver Convention, 1970

Due in part to the atmosphere of the preconvention meetings, the convention in Denver proved to be one of the most hostile sessions ever as controversy erupted over a number of explosive issues. At least seventeen Baptist state papers questioned editorially the "unchristian," "bitter," "vitriolic," "arrogant," "militant" spirit and attitude of some of the messengers. (47) Only Joe Odle of Mississippi disagreed. He characterized the convention as a meeting of determined action with little show of animosity, "and the love of Christ prevailed." (48) The motion that produced the most tumult at the convention was presented by Gwin T. Turner, a California pastor, who later became a leader in the Fellowship of Conservative Southern Baptists and the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship. Turner moved

   that because the new The Broadman Bible Commentary is out of keeping
   with the beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptist pastors and
   people this Convention request the Sunday School Board to withdraw
   Volume 1 from further distribution and that it be rewritten with due
   consideration of the conservative viewpoint. (49)

The debate concerning the commentary was delayed and came on the heels of a vigorous and highly emotional debate concerning five explosive motions concerning the Christian Life Commission. This set of circumstances, taken together with all of the preconvention activity against the commentary, made it impossible for volume 1 to receive an objective evaluation. During extended debate concerning the commentary, five messengers criticized the work while three messengers defended it. Each speaker was given three minutes. (50)

Turner remarked that it was one thing to interpret the Bible but another thing to contradict it. James Sullivan sought to convince messengers that volume 1 was not the official position of the SBC. He noted that the BSSB had published books to meet the needs of various Southern Baptist groups. Clifton Allen defended the volume as a work of responsible scholarship. He appealed to messengers to "pass on to the next generation a heritage of the open mind and open Bible, to understand and interpret it under the leadership of the Holy Spirit." (51) Allen's statement was greeted with complete silence, a contrast from the applause and shouts that followed statements made by those who criticized the commentary. (52) California messenger Glennom Culwell read passages from volume 1 which he said questioned the truth of the Bible. He told messengers that the commentary used such words as myth, fantasy, and tradition, indicating to him that the volume did not support infallibility. (53)

Baptist statesman and Oklahoma pastor Herschel Hobbs, who was president of the convention during the Elliott crisis, spoke against Turner's motion. Hobbs, who claimed later that the Denver convention was the meanest one he ever faced, defended the style of writing used by Davies and noted that Davies discussed several views of Abraham's offering of Isaac before stating his own opinion. Although Hobbs had one minute left to speak and was about to make his last point, messengers hooted and hollered that Hobbs was speaking beyond his three minute limit. "It soon became a chant throughout the crowd," wrote Hobbs. (54) Realizing that a psychological situation had developed in which messengers were not open to reason, Hobbs left the podium without making his last point. He indicated later that his final point was that Turner's motion was contrary to the constitution of the SBC. According to Hobbs, the purpose of the convention was not to approve or condemn books but to harness the power of churches for evangelism and missions. (55) After the debate concluded, messengers passed Turner's motion by a vote of 5,394 to 2,170. (56) The convention voted to request the BSSB to withdraw volume 1 and have it rewritten from a more conservative position. Southern Baptists had voted to ban a book. Messengers at an SBC annual meeting had never taken such action, not even during the controversy over Elliott's book.

Sunday School Board Action

Two months after the convention in Denver, the elected trustees of the BSSB met at Glorietta, New Mexico. By a margin of thirty-six to fifteen, trustees voted to withdraw volume 1. A minority group at the meeting led by Claude Broach, a North Carolina pastor, presented a substitute motion calling for Sullivan to explain to the constituency the difficulties involved in conforming to the request of the convention and to offer reasonable alternatives such as corrective footnotes or an insert to be placed in future editions. The minority group argued that if the board was forced to follow convention actions as a guideline, then the board would have to question whether it could have any integrity in publishing books in the future. Broach defended his substitute motion telling the Glorietta group that "if you adopt the (original) motion before us, you will be adopting a creed and we will speak one day only of the Southern Baptist Church." (57) The substitute motion failed to pass by a vote of thirty-three to twenty because most members felt that they should support the action of the convention. (58)

In other significant action, board trustees instructed the staff of the BSSB to edit carefully all literature published in the future to be sure that interpretations of the Bible were consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message and with the generally accepted views of Southern Baptists. (59) Morris Ashcraft, a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted in an article published by several state papers, that the instruction of the trustees to staff set up Southern Baptist tradition as the norm for biblical interpretation and gave creedal significance to the Baptist Faith and Message which was indirectly revised by the action. Ashcraft argued that the 1963 statement of faith did not set itself or Southern Baptist traditionalism as two criteria by which the Bible was to be interpreted. Rather, the statement said that the only criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. (60)

In his desire to follow the instructions of the trustees, Sullivan, in September 1970, appointed H. Leo Eddleman, who would later become president of Criswell Bible Institute, to a newly created position known as doctrinal reader. Sullivan claimed that Eddleman would read every publication of the Sunday School Board before publication and would make suggestions for clarification. (61) Ross Edwards told his readers he was elated beyond words by such an appointment. (62) Although Sullivan later changed the name of the position to "manuscript analyst," other Southern Baptists were disheartened at such an appointment. Bob Terry, assistant editor of the Western Recorder, said Eddleman would function in a censorship role. Ray Summers, chairman of the Religion Department at Baylor University, wrote several letters to Clifton Allen expressing his concern that Eddleman might be reading future volumes of the commentary, a part of which Summers was then writing. Summers was alarmed that any one person would be appointed as putting a stamp of approval on everything published by the board. He stated that he never would have agreed to write anything for the Board had a doctrinal reader been in place when he accepted his assignment. Summers declared, "As Baptists we need no one man to stamp an imprimatur, nihil obstat on our writings." (63)

After the doctrinal reader was appointed in late September, the special committee elected to make suggestions for rewriting the commentary went to work to suggest possible courses of action. When board trustees met in January 1971, they voted to ask the original authors of volume 1, Davies and Honeycutt, to rewrite the Genesis and Exodus sections of the commentary. Davies, whose writings were the focus of attention, agreed to explore making some concessions by giving more space to the conservative view in the setting of other views, yet without giving up any of his fundamental convictions or compromising his personal integrity. (64) Unfortunately for the Board, a religion editor for the Cincinnati Enquirer, Ben L. Kaufman, reported about a month before the scheduled convention in St. Louis that Davies would not "give up" his views. Kaufman's story appeared in many Baptist state papers. (65) Despite Davies's conciliatory attitude in seeking to assist Southern Baptists in a troubled time, most Baptists, prejudiced by Kaufman's story, viewed Davies as unwilling to carry out the terms of Turner's motion in Denver.

St. Louis (1971) and Philadelphla (1972) Convention Meetings

All the work that had been done by persons at the board concerning the commentary since the Denver meeting was destroyed when messengers in St. Louis approved a motion by Kenneth Barnett of Oklahoma that the BSSB had not followed the convention's 1970 decision regarding the rewriting of volume 1 and that the Board must find a new writer and proceed with that ruling. The motion barely passed 2,672 to 2,290. (66) Walter Shurden later noted that the motion to obtain another writer was an obvious reference to Davies, even though this fact was not spelled out in Barnett's motion. (67) A month later, board trustees met at Ridgecrest, North Carolina, and authorized the administration to seek a new author for the Genesis part of the commentary. The board also expressed its painful regret to Davies and assured him of their appreciation and respect for him as a Christian scholar. (68)

In August 1971, Clyde T. Francisco, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was invited to prepare the new treatment of Genesis. Francisco accepted the assignment but stated that his acceptance of the assignment did not imply his rejection of Davies's work. His decision to undertake the task was based on his "confidence in the historical method of biblical study, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and the willingness of Southern Baptists to be open to truth wherever it may be found." (69) Francisco's new commentary was published in 1973 wearing the tag "Volume 1, Revised." Leon McBeth noted that while Francisco used more felicitous language, opponents claimed his revision made only minor changes. (70)

The Broadman Controversy essentially came to an end at the Philadelphia convention in 1972. Yet, events that occurred months before the meeting played a significant role in bringing the controversy to a close. In April, the Fellowship of Conservative Southern Baptists met in Florida. In this meeting, M. O. Owens called for members to work actively to elect a convention president who was conservative theologically, Turner offered to the group a motion he planned to present at the Philadelphia convention calling for the BSSB to withdraw the entire commentary and to enlist a group of thoroughly conservative writers to rewrite the entire set. (71) When Turner's motion was presented to the convention, it was defeated by an overwhelming standing vote of about four to one. (72) The defeat was due mainly to the fact that prior to the convention, the vast majority of Baptist state paper editors denounced Turner's motion and the Fellowship itself. John J. Hurt, editor of the Baptist Standard of Texas, called Turner's motion "ridiculous on its face," and in his headline referred to the Fellowship as "Disciples of Discord." (73) Hurt speculated that the group "had reached too far and would be defeated." (74) Even editors who had the same basic theology as the Fellowship characterized the group as extremists who were trying to dominate the life of the denomination. (75) Thus, the last major attack against The Broadman Bible Commentary had been thwarted, but the issues relating to the commentary did not go away.

Consequences

The most obvious consequence of The Broadman Commentary Controversy is that Southern Baptists did not settle the issues at hand. As Walter Shurden observed, Southern Baptists banned a book, sent the author of the book packing, then had the book rewritten by a scholar who did not agree entirely with the first man, yet utilized the same scholarly methodology as the first man. Shurden indicated that Southern Baptists had a history of "non-settling" the issue by saying both things at the same time because "denominational unity is more important to most Southern Baptists than theological arguments about the Bible." (76) This approach to problem solving may have retained a surface unity, but the controversy exposed the enlarging cracks in the ostensible denominational solidarity of the SBC. This controversy, like the Elliott Controversy, brought to light the theological diversity among Southern Baptists.

The controversy also highlighted the inadequacy of Baptist polity to address problems. Messengers undermined the trustee system and took matters into their own hands as they sought to direct the operations of the BSSB from the floor of the convention. According to Shurden, if this was done for every agency, the trustee system would be destroyed. (77) Many messengers were unaware or confused about the role and function of trustees in the relationship to annual conventions. No doubt, the actions taken against the BSSB in the 1960s and early 1970s prompted the SBC Executive Committee to present to the St. Louis convention Bylaw 17. The bylaw, which was approved by messengers at the 1972 convention meeting, required that any motion dealing with the internal operations and program of an agency be referred to the agency's board of trustees. Although the bylaw called for trustees to give a report to the next annual convention meeting, it stated that by a two-thirds vote messengers of a convention could require a report at that particular convention. (78) The bylaw hindered but did not eradicate the potential for floor action on the part of uninformed or opportunistic persons.

In fact, floor action taken against The Broadman Bible Commentary led some persons to call for changes in the way Southern Baptists conducted business. Editor Daley of Kentucky argued that some type of reform in Baptist polity was needed because only one-third of SBC churches were represented at a typical convention. Daley suggested that current Baptist polity encouraged those with strong feelings and loud words to influence messengers in their direction. Daley called for a polity in which each state would be represented in proportion to the number of Baptists in the state by carefully chosen delegates who would meet to do business. Because he doubted that such a system of representation would come soon, Daley advocated sending more laypersons as messengers in order to make the convention more democratic than it usually was. (79)

The Broadman Controversy further intensified the suspicions of Baptists toward higher criticism and agencies such as the BSSB and the Southern Baptist seminaries who utilized historical-critical methodology. A feeling among a number of rank-and-file Baptists was that numerous persons worked or taught in Southern Baptist institutions who did not believe the Bible. This perception was nurtured by the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship who kept the issues of the commentary controversy alive through various means. The Fellowship established its own publishing arm, known as the Baptist Literature Board, whose aim was to provide an alternative to the literature of the BSSB. The Fellowship's Southern Baptist Journal also kept the issues relating to the controversy alive as it continued to publish articles critical of The Broadman Bible Commentary. (80) The journal also promoted rival theological schools such as Luther Rice Seminary in Florida and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Tennessee. These schools were primarily funded by Southern Baptist churches and were a visible expression of the dissatisfaction that some Baptists had with the six Southern Baptist seminaries. (81)

Conclusion

From 1969 until 1972, Southern Baptists were engrossed in a controversy over a commentary published by their own Sunday School Board. The controversy was never really settled, although the convention actions in Philadelphia brought most of the wrangling over the commentary to an end. In general, Southern Baptists of various stripes were unhappy with the outcome. Southern Baptists had sustained denominational unity in the face of bitter fighting, but the important issues raised in the controversy were not addressed in a meaningful way.

Instead of honest dialogue concerning higher criticism, biblical infallibility, and other pressing theological questions, political activity won the day. Not only did preconvention meetings or convention floor activity play prominent roles in the conflict, Baptist state paper editors proved to be a prominent political force as they shaped the viewpoints of grass roots Baptists. The state papers were, in fact, Southern Baptists' primary source of information about the conflict. Baptist polity, which was and still is vague and ambiguous, seemed to encourage rather than deter harmful political action. As a result of this activity, when the controversy ended, Southern Baptists had not grown stronger or become more unified. Instead, Baptists were never more uncomfortable with theological diversity in the denomination. Only a few years after the controversy subsided, a prominent Baptist historian would ask if the Southern Baptist synthesis was indeed cracking. (82)

(1.) Walter B. Shurden, Not a Silent People: Controversies That Have Shaped Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), 103-11. Shurden has an excellent condensed discussion of the Elliott Controversy here. See also: Shurden, "The Inerrancy Debate: A Comparative Study of Southern Baptist Controversies," Baptist History and Heritage 16 (April 1981): 12-19.

(2.) Clifton J. Allen, gen. ed., The Broadman Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), vol. 1: General Articles; Genesis-Exodus.

(3.) Clifton J. Allen, "A Summary History of the Conception, Development, and Publication of The Broadman Bible Commentary, July 1972," Typed Manuscripts [TMs] [photocopy], 1, Clifton J. Allen Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(4.) Ibid., 2-10.

(5.) Ibid., 9-10.

(6.) James L. Sullivan, God Is My Record (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974), 129.

(7.) Clifton J. Allen, "Notes following discussion by the Plans and Policies Committee of the Sunday School Board," January 29, 1968," TMs [photocopy], Allen Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(8.) Ibid.

(9.) Allen, "A Summary History," 3.

(10.) G. Henton Davies, Genesis, vol. 1 of The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), 198.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid., 199.

(13.) Letter from Clark Pinnock to "Dear Christian Friend," October 8, 1969, M. O. Owens Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(14.) See Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994).

(15.) Clark Pinnock, "First of a New Series," Christianity Today (December 5, 1969): 17.

(16.) Letter from Clark Pinnock to M. O. Owens, October 8, 1969, M. O. Owens Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(17.) Letter from Gerald C. Primm to M. O. Owens, December 13, 1969, Owens Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(18.) See H. Leon McBeth, "Fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention in Recent Years," Review and Expositor 79 (Winter 1982): 95-103.

(19.) Gerald Primm, "Editorial," Sword and the Trowel (January 1969): 3, 10-11. Primm's reference to the "down grade road" refers to a controversy that faced English Baptists in the late-nineteenth century known as the Down Grade Controversy that centered around Charles H. Spurgeon.

(20.) Ross Edwards, "Witnessing to the Truth," Word and Way (January 8, 1970): 2.

(21.) K. Owen White, "... Death in the Pot," Baptist Standard (January 10, 1962): 6. White, a prominent Texas pastor, called Elliott's book "liberalism, pure and simple." His article appeared in a number of Baptist state papers.

(22.) Edwards, "Witnessing to the Truth," 2.

(23.) Jack Gritz, "Warning to Our People," Baptist Messenger (January 15, 1970): 2. According to Herschel Hobbs, Gritz was later asked if he would sell his copy of volume 1. Gritz replied, "I would not take a thousand dollars for it." See Herschel H. Hobbs, My Faith and Message (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993), 221.

(24.) Ibid.

(25.) Joe Odle, "Review of Volume 1," Baptist Record 22 (January 1970): 4.

(26.) Ibid.

(27.) C. Eugene Whitlow, "The Editor's Page," Baptist New Mexican (May 23, 1970): 2.

(28.) J. Wash Watts, "Conflicts Between the Treatment of Genesis in The Broadman Bible Commentary and the Bible Itself," Baptist and Reflector (March 5, 1970): 5.

(29.) Ibid.

(30.) K. Owen White, "An Uncertain Sound," Baptist Beacon (March 12, 1970): 4.

(31.) Wayne Dehoney, "Reviews: The Broadman Bible Commentary," Facts and Trends (September 1969): 4.

(32.) Ibid.

(33.) Robert S. Alley, "Broadman Bible Commentary in Review," Religious Herald (November 13, 1969): 12.

(34.) Walter G. Nunn, "Commentaries Combine Scholarship, Exposition," Alabama Baptist (December 11, 1965): 16.

(35.) C. R. Daley, "In Defense of The Broadman Bible Commentary," Western Recorder (April 11, 1970): 4.

(36.) James Sullivan, "Why The Broadman Commentary Was Published," Western Recorder (April 11, 1970): 11.

(37.) Sullivan, God is My Record, 130.

(38.) Ross Edwards, "Southern Baptists' Silent Majority," Word and Way (March 12, 1970): 2.

(39.) C. R. Daley, "Pre-Convention Bible Conference Plans Appear Unwise," Western Recorder (March 28, 1970): 4-5.

(40.) Robert O'Brien, "Speakers Affirm the Bible in Preconvention Session," Maryland Baptist (June 11, 1970): 8-9.

(41.) Ibid.

(42.) "No Agreement Reached By Unofficial Rump Session," Rocky Mountain Baptist (June 5, 1970): 10.

(43.) Ross Edwards, "The Christian Life Commission Seminar in Atlanta," Word and Way (April 23, 1970): 2-3. The morality seminar came under scrutiny mainly because some controversial speakers were on the program.

(44.) James Sullivan, "My Interpretation of the Rejection of Volume 1 of The Broadman Bible Commentary, SBC, Denver, Colorado, 1970 October 1970" TMs (transcribed], 1-4, Files of the Executive Office of the Sunday School Board (Dargan Library, LifeWay Christian Resources).

(45.) W. O. Vaught Jr., "Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah," Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine (June 18, 1970): 14.

(46.) Ibid.

(47.) Jim Newton, "Editorials on SBC Rap `Hostile' Denver Spirit," Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine (June 25, 1970): 12-13.

(48.) Ibid.

(49.) Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1970, 63.

(50.) "SBC Asks For Recall of Genesis Commentary," Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine (June 11, 1970): 11.

(51.) Ibid.

(52.) Ibid.

(53.) Ibid.

(54.) Hobbs, My Faith and Message, 220.

(55.) Ibid., 220-21. Hobbs noted that since only about ten thousand copies of the volume had been sold by June 1970, he doubted that many messengers had read it. Hobbs also stated that after the motion to withdraw the commentary passed, messengers rushed from the meeting and bought every volume one in the exhibit hall. According to Hobbs, there was such a rush on Baptist Book Stores to buy the volume, the Board had to send out instructions not to sell any more.

(56.) Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1970, 78.

(57.) C. E. Whitlow, "Sunday School Board Votes To Follow SBC Recommendation," Baptist New Mexican (August 22, 1970): 3, 12.

(58.) Ibid.

(59.) "Board Votes To Withdraw, Rewrite Commentary, Cancel Two Quarterlies," Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine (August 27, 1970): 24.

(60.) Morris Ashcraft, "Theological Implications of Denver," Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine (October 1, 1970): 15.

(61.) Bob Terry, "Southern Baptists' New Doctrinal Reader," Western Recorder (September 19, 1970): 4.

(62.) Ross Edwards, "Eddleman Joins Baptist Sunday School Board Staff," Word and Way (September 17, 1970): 2.

(63.) Letters from Ray Summers to Clifton Allen, September 11, 1970; October 1, 1970, Allen Papers (Historical Library and Archives, SBC).

(64.) "Report of the Sunday School Board Committee About Volume 1 of The Broadman Bible Commentary, 12-13 October 1970," TMs [photocopy], 1-4, Allen Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(65.) Ben L. Kaufman, "Author Won't `Give Up' Views in Book," Rocky Mountain Baptist (May 7, 1971): 2.

(66.) Annual, Southern Baptist Convention, 1971, 71-80.

(67.) Shurden, Not A Silent People, 116.

(68.) Allen, "A Summary History of the Conception, Development, and Publication of The Broadman Bible Commentary," 27-28, Allen Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(69.) Letter from Clyde Francisco to Clifton Allen, September 25, 1971, Allen Papers Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives).

(70.) H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 681.

(71.) "Report of the April 8, 1972, meeting of the Fellowship of Conservative Southern Baptists, 14 April 1972," TMs [photocopy], April 14, 1972, Owens Papers (Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives). See also: John J. Hurt, "Another Threat," Baptist Standard (May 31, 1972): 6; and C. R. Daley, "Broadman Commentary Motion Should Be Defeated," Western Recorder (May 13, 1972): 4-5.

(72.) "Commentary Recall Motion Defeated By a 4-1 Margin," Baptist Standard (June 14, 1972): 4.

(73.) Hurt, "Another Threat," 6.

(74.) Ibid.

(75.) See Jack Gritz, "Baptists Are Still Conservative," Baptist Messenger (June 22, 1972): 2; and C. Eugene Whitlow, "The Editor's Page," Baptist New Mexican (June 17, 1972): 2.

(76.) Walter Shurden, "The Problem of Authority in the SBC," Review and Expositor 75 (Spring 1978): 225.

(77.) Ibid., 226.

(78.) Ibid., 226-27.

(79.) C. R. Daley, "Baptist Conventions: Democratic or Demagogic?" Western Recorder (July 11, 1970): 4.

(80.) William A. Powell, "Volume One of the Commentary," Southern Baptist Journal (October 1974): 2.

(81.) McBeth, "Fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention in Recent Years," 95.

(82.) Walter Shurden, "The Southern Baptist Synthesis: Is It Cracking?" Baptist History and Heritage 16 (April 1981): 2-11.

Jerry Faught II is assistant professor of religion, Dickinson Chair, Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Oklahoma.