Curtis Freeman on W.A. Criswell

Curtis Freeman, director of the Baptist House of Studies at Duke Divinity School, has an interesting article in the Journal of Southern Religion that analyzes W.A. Criswell's "change of heart" on the issue of race. Read the article here.

In the article, Freeman challenges Russell Moore's contention that liberals don't deserve the credit that they receive for leading the charge for civil rights for African-Americans.

Here's a snippet:

Commenting on the changing views of segregationists like Criswell, historian Andrew Manis states that civil rights was the one and only instance in which liberals in the SBC won the war. Baptist theologian Russell Moore disputes this widely shared claim that credits liberals with the advances in civil rights over the obstructionism of conservatives. Instead, Moore maintains that conservative evangelical religion, not the liberal social gospel, was responsible for overcoming segregation. Moore contends that Southern Baptist progressives have been falsely given credit for crucifying Jim Crow. Contrary to the consensus view represented by scholars like Manis that stresses liberal political pressure, Moore contends that “Jim Crow was . . . drowned, in a baptistery,” adding that conservatives only “needed theological liberals to remind us of what we said we believed.” Progressives who advocated for civil rights played a role in defeating segregation, but Moore holds that because they realized the theological bankruptcy of the social gospel, liberals adopted the strategy of shaming conservatives with the message of born again religion until conservatives came to see segregation as a repudiation of the gospel. Liberals, he continues, “appealed not to America’s reason, but to America’s conscience” by issuing a call to evangelical and revivalist notions of individual conversion and churchmanship: “It is to our own shame that we ignored our own doctrines to advance racial pride. And it is to our further shame that, in so many cases, we needed theological liberals to remind us of what we said we believed.”15

Moore’s implication, that appeals to conscience are conservative but that challenges based
in reason are liberal, over-generalizes. Progressive voices in the SBC like Porter Routh and Clifton Allen who led the way in drafting the 1968 “Statement Concerning the Crisis in Our Nation” over the objections of conservative evangelicals were not rationalistic liberals merely borrowing conservative evangelical language in the sense Moore ascribes. Nor does his remarkable claim square with the history of aggressive and residual white supremacy that was endorsed by conservative Southern Baptists like Criswell who distinguished between the evangelical gospel of soul salvation, which they affirmed, and the social gospel of soup and soap, which they despised. Just in case anyone might be left wondering what could possibly lead someone to such a radical revisionist interpretation of civil rights, Moore has a simple answer. He was concerned that liberals were continuing the same strategy by putting pressure on contemporary evangelicals “to accept new movements—from feminism to homosexual liberation and beyond—as the legitimate heirs of the civil rights movement.”16 In his rush to counter new liberal advances, Moore conjectures that as conservatives were victorious over liberals in the Baptist battles, so they must also have bested liberals in the race battles. Given that from 1956 to 1979 Criswell was a definitive voice of conservative evangelical theology, his altered views on race provide a case study to test Moore’s argument.

Historical Amnesia: A Response to Beth Newman

Beth Newman is a Professor of Theology and Ethics at the Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond. In addition to co-authoring the Baptist Manifesto, Newman writes guest commentary for the Associated Baptist Press.

Recently, Newman advocated the use of creeds in an opinion piece for the ABP.

Newman writes....

Professor Walter Shurden has commented recently on the diverse dangers arising for what he terms the “historical amnesia” of the Baptist people.

Foremost among these dangers he places the movement “from a Christ-centered to a creed-centered faith.” The substitution of which he speaks means, I suppose, the abandonment of a vital experiential faith for a structured recital of theological propositions. These propositions would presumably be used to enforce some rigid orthodoxy.

Now I would agree that historical amnesia is one of the greatest dangers faced by today’s Baptists -- and by most other Christians, by the way. Where I find myself in profound disagreement with Dr. Shurden is his location of danger in the creeds. The creeds are our surest defense against the very historical amnesia that threatens us.....

The historic creeds, while they certainly do not replace Scripture, are a way of shaping this lens. In 2005, in fact, the Baptist World Alliance recited the Apostle’s Creed as it had done at its beginning one hundred years earlier. The first president of BWA, Alexander Maclaren, in his address to the assembly, proposed that their very first act be an affirmation of the historic Christian faith through saying the creed. He rightly saw that saying the Apostle’s Creed is not antithetical to being Christ-centered. Read the rest here.

It was fine for the BWA to recite the Apostles Creed in 1905 but let's remember why this was done. The purpose of the recitation was to let other Protestants know that "we are like you in our basic beliefs. Don't worry about us. We are no less Christian than you."

But again, let's don't think for a moment that most Baptists in 1905 knew the Apostles Creed by heart or that they recited it or any other creed regularly. And let's not think for a moment that Alexander Maclaren was pushing creeds into Baptist Life. There was no effort then or in subsequent years to use a creed in the BWA. In fact, the opposite is the case. Throughout its history, the BWA has been staunchly anti-creedal.

Baptist moderates have always been willing to teach the history of the church and have always used the phrase - "All of Church History is Our History." We've taught the creeds. However, we've simply felt that creeds need not be recited or given a privileged position to have unity (by the way, exactly what creeds is Newman referring to; the Apostles' Creed, Nicea, and others of the early church or do we include Protestant statements like Westminster?).

When we have achieved any unity it has been through a common personal religious experience with Jesus and a common commitment to the authority of the Bible. Perhaps, Newman's historical amnesia is her failure to find value in the Baptist heritage and its warnings about coercive creedalism. Baptists can surely recite creeds if they want to; they are free! But Baptist history tells us over and over again about groups imposing their interpretations of creedal statements against believers. We have no historical amnesia about that.

Throughout her history, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship has been criticized for not having an official detailed "confession." That is in part a reaction to fundamentalism and its coercive practices and I expect a recognition that creeds haven't produced much voluntary unity. Nevertheless, the CBF is not without principles. It has adopted a set of core values or doctrinal beliefs. The very first core value is Soul Freedom:

Soul Freedom – We believe in the priesthood of all believers. We affirm the freedom and responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of creed or the control of clergy or government.

Allow me to recapitulate: Why put creeds between a believer's reading of the Bible and his/her relationship to God?

No Freedom For The Soul With A Creed!

While the Associated Baptist Press certainly has the freedom to use Beth Newman or other commentators - it's just a bit ironic that ABP, whose existence is so heavily interwined with the CBF, has published an op-ed which appears to contradict moderate Baptist core values.

Since the ABP has chosen to publish opinion pieces, perhaps they should also make room on their website for letters to the editor. The Texas Baptist Standard and North Carolina Biblical Recorder both do this.

Many publications include a disclaimer that says that the views of commentators do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher. The ABP has no such disclaimer. Perhaps a disclaimer is needed?

Or perhaps it's time to add a voice consistent with the principles of soul freedom and religious liberty that most people identify with ABP itself?