Reflections By An SBC Refugee
By Zarrel V. Lambert, Emeritus Professor of Marketing,
Mebane, NC
Note: From 1967–1970 the author taught at the University of Texas in Austin and faithfully served as a member and deacon in the Crestview Baptist Church, when the editor was the pastor.
A common practice of politicians and religious proponents, who lack confidence that their actions and pronouncements can withstand thoughtful scrutiny, is to label and stigmatize others who question their assertions. Common examples of labels used in this way include the adjectives anti-Christian, anti-god, atheistic, godless, heretical, liberal, non-biblical, satanic, secular, ungodly, and unpatriotic. A deceased southern governor who campaigned as a candidate for the U.S. presidency several years ago demolished and silenced many who were inclined to criticize his actions and policies by labeling them "pointy headed intellectuals." Sometime back, right- wing religious figures often destroyed the credibility and relevance of those with differing views by labeling them as advocates of social gospel, as humanists, and more horrifically as secular humanists. If the reflections that follow fail to elicit a label in the above vein, such failure will probably reveal a disappointing amount of impact.
It should be noted at the outset that this refugee can not legitimately claim to have learned expertise in theology, in the history of Christianity, in history more generally, or in the field of ethics. But then many current religious elites in the Southern Baptist Convention, and affiliated state and local associations, fail to display these same qualities. If these knowledge bases are possessed, many proponents of right-wing religious ideology appear to place little importance on logical consistency, or what is commonly referred to as intellectual integrity. Is this not an ethical shortcoming?
A refugee by definition is from some other place. What is this refugee`s homeland?
About fifty years ago, my high school sweetheart invited me, or maybe I invited myself, to go with her to the church in which she had been active all her life. Lacking a Baptist background, my discoveries included GAs, RAs, Training Union, and that the church was considered Southern Baptist because it contributed to the Cooperative Program. The church had a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere, and did not exclude persons from various positions due to a failure to sign statements of so-called beliefs or faith.
The pastor, who appeared to be in his 50s or 60s, was insightful, thoughtful, intellectually dynamic and inquisitive, firmly in touch with, if not part of, the "real world." For example, as the prospect of space exploration was entering human awareness, he saw this possibility as a marvelous opportunity to develop a better understanding of God and God`s creation. Some members of the ministry at the time asserted that such exploration would violate God`s plan and will. In deeds and words, the pastor of this church was concerned about human needs and inequities in the community and the broader society. He gave away much of his small church salary as he encountered families and persons in need. So how were his household and wife supported financially?
His wife independently owned and ran a successful business in the community. She supported the household and him. If they were alive today, they would be excluded from participating in many Southern Baptist organizations because neither would have acquiesced to the assertion or mandate of female inequality and subservience to males, husbands or otherwise.
To continue the story about my homeland, this pastor baptized me, and I was perceived by others and myself as a Southern Baptist. Following my marriage to the sweetheart mentioned above by this same pastor, my professional career took us to numerous locations in the U. S. With each move, we became members of a Southern Baptist church in our new community. In one case, it was a new church started a short time earlier and supported by the Home Mission Board. To my knowledge, there was not another Southern Baptist church for hundreds of miles around. In our progression of moves, my wife and I served on various committees and in various church roles such as Sunday School teachers, youth workers, and in my case, an ordained deacon.
Parenthetically, she manifested far more qualities of a Baptist deacon, and to a much greater degree, than I ever did. What a loss to God`s service during those years! After we became refugees, she was elected and ordained as an elder on the governing board of a church in a mainstream denomination, which benefits from the services of numerous female pastors.
In my homeland more than 20 years ago, it was noticeable to me that a closed-minded, dogmatic ideology was developing and spreading within the Southern Baptist Convention. This ideology contrasted sharply with amy understanding of God acquired in the Southern Baptist churches of my religious homeland.
From my layman`s vantage point, the concepts of ideology and theology differ sharply, although it is not my purpose to enter into a debate over semantics. Theology, in my unlearned view, results from a continuous effort to better understand God, God`s creation in its entirety, and God`s desires for that creation. Thus, human understanding of God`s revelation, if not revelation itself, evolves and expands over time. A wholistic view of the Old and New Testaments indicates that such evolution and expansion is a central, if not explicit, theme in these scriptures.
God as creator endowed the human species with cognitive reasoning and critical thinking skills, imagination, abilities to conceptualize, and a thirst for increasing amounts of knowledge and information, all of which seem to be attributes superior to other forms of life in God`s creation, or so some of us humans wish to think. The endowment of these attributes implies that God intended for them to be utilized to develop an expanding and improved understanding of God, God`s creation and desires, and how humans should relate to one another. Is the parable of the talents not applicable to mental capabilities as well as to other gifts such as money? Or, was this endowment of mental abilities an idle gesture on God`s part or a subversive machination by some quasi deity? Theology, although ultimately a belief system, is continually informed by increases in knowledge and understanding gained by researchers and scholars in all behavioral, physical, social, and religious sciences.
By contrast, religious ideology, from my vantage point, is a closed, dogmatic system of beliefs; one that adherents and religious elites strive to make impenetrable to new knowledge, information, insights, and understanding. Is the gospel so uncompetitive that "spreading the gospel" can not be done successfully in an environment where information and understanding from all sources are unfettered? Such religious ideology typically implies that God is fragile, weak, and therefore must be protected by self-proclaimed religious elites or moguls who as males act as if they have a monopoly on "knowing" God`s truths, word, and will. A closed, dogmatic system of religious ideology can lead, indirectly if not directly, to ethical shortcomings? For example, is it in essence deceptive and ethically questionable to claim for oneself, or for like-minded individuals to claim reciprocally for each other, an exclusionary ability to discern unambiguously and with complete certitude all of God`s communications with the human species throughout all time?
The actions and assertions of a dogmatic religious ideology in Southern Baptist circles and elsewhere are indicative of men, as defined by gender, who seemingly seek to acquire and exercise power over people. In religious settings, such power comes from cloaking themselves as an unquestionable source of God`s revelation. That is, God`s truths are only what these men say they are! Such monopolistic and authoritarian claims characterize the elevated elites in numerous religions, cults, and sects throughout human history, including Roman Catholicism (at least prior to the Reformation), and now in the Southern Baptist Convention, so it seems to me.
Ethical and thoughtful evaluation of the actions and assertions of religious elites have been seen by them in earlier times as threats to their power. These threats to power have been commonly considered so potent that, throughout history, persons who posed cogent questions, offered contradictory information, or voiced differing opinions were effectively eliminated by one means or another.
In the political realm, the twentieth century witnessed these types of behaviors by numerous totalitarian states. Persons who were suspected of failing to adhere to the party line espoused by the political elites were eliminated by one means or another. Individuals whose thoughts were imputed to not be in total agreement with the powerful political elite were purged from administrative and governmental posts, from faculty positions in educational institutions, from the military, and from cultural and scientific organizations.
Has such totalitarianism and stifling of thought occurred in Southern Baptist educational institutions and seminaries, organizational structures, and outreach endeavors such as home and foreign mission programs? Is there any validity in reports that entire churches have been expelled because they failed to subjugate females to males, or failed to cast out persons who exhibited the honesty, some might say ethics, to reveal feelings of being attracted to others of their own gender?
The common justification for such banishments and purges in the political realm has been that the eliminated individuals were a threat to national security. Many Americans upon hearing this justification by totalitarian states have interpreted it to mean that the individuals so accused were seen as threats to the power of the political elites.
When religious denominations engage in similar banishments and purges, is the motivation similar; i.e., to eliminate perceived threats to the power of the denominational elites and moguls? To argue that such purges are undertaken to protect God, or to prevent the corruption of God`s teachings and word, or some similar contention, is to argue (in my judgment) that God, and God`s teachings and word are so frail that self-appointed humans, usually male religious elites, must intervene to provide protection. If such implied frailty is the case, is protection worthwhile? If God is all powerful and everlasting, then the justifications given by the religious elites and moguls are deceptive, and thus an apparent breach of ethics.
In my former homeland, the concept of a "priesthood of believers" was emphasized. This concept, as I understood it, permitted and encouraged individuals to expand and deepen their understanding of God and God`s will for their lives by utilizing the mental abilities endowed by God their creator and by accessing all sources of knowledge, information and insight available to them. If my memory is correct, considerable criticism was directed at authoritarian, hierarchical religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. These organizations were ones in which hierarchical elites were said to assert and act as if "the Bible says what they say it says," and no probing questions and differing interpretations were allowed.
Since that time, considerable reversals seem to have occurred in my homeland. Now it seems that one can only be part of the "priesthood" if one accepts what the new set of religious elites say the Bible says. For instance, faculty members at educational institutions and persons holding various church offices have been, and continue to be required to sign statements agreeing essentially that the Bible says what the religious elites say the Bible says.
Changes in the "priesthood of believers" concept and acquisition of power are not necessarily unrelated to the assertion of literal inerrancy. Persons who accept the literal inerrancy assertion are apt to be more inclined to accept "the Bible says what we say it says" type of ideological claims by religious elites. Literal inerrancy lends authoritativeness to such claims, and increases reluctance to raise questions or voice doubts. Questioning pronouncements of religious elites takes on more of an aura of questioning God. As a result, religious elites acquire greater capability to select particular Bible verses and to construe these verses in a manner that enhances their exercise of influence and power over people, and exalts their own positions.
From an ethical perspective, the literal inerrancy assertion rests on selective reading of the Old and New Testaments; i.e., on emphasizing particular verses while ignoring other passages. Otherwise, numerous logical inconsistencies arise when these scriptures are considered in their entirety, assuming current dictionaries of American English are used to ascribe meanings to the language of these scriptures. Ethical issues arise because the literal inerrancy assertion necessitates the willful withholding of evidence; that is, willfully disregarding passages that are inconsistent or contradictory with the ideology of the religious elites who advocate literal inerrancy.
Literal inerrancy advocates, in addition to glossing over logical inconsistencies, typically fail to point out carefully and fully, that the contents of the Bible as known today were not formalized until more than 300 years after the life of Jesus, that numerous additional writings were considered sacred by people who called themselves Christian during the first two to three centuries, and that some of these writings were still viewed as inspired or sacred several centuries later.[1] From a present day perspective, this 300 plus year time lapse exceeds the length of time the United States has formally been a nation.
The failure to address and seriously consider rigorously developed scholarly evidence that contradicts the closed-minded ideological interpretations of religious elites may occur for two reasons. One, the scholarly knowledge of these religious elites may be seriously impaired in the area in which they claim to have the utmost knowledge and expertise with complete clarity and certainty. Or, two, they are willfully withholding information from their audiences. Furthermore, it is essentially misleading for them to characterize evidence, considered rigorous by outstanding scholars with international reputations, as heresy without carefully providing the technical definition of the term to naïve lay audiences, or to apply out-of-hand other dismissive and prejudicial terms to such evidence without offering counter evidence of, at least, equal scholarly rigor. The point is not to argue that the evidence and conclusions offered by internationally recognized scholars such as Ehrman[2] are correct. Instead, the point is to maintain that the failure of literal inerrancy advocates to rigorously address scholarly evidence which runs counter to their ideological interpretations indicates serious shortcomings in their knowledge and expertise, or seemingly a willful withholding of information from their audiences, of which most members are likely to be naïve in such matters.
It is not uncommon for members of naïve lay audiences to be likened as God`s "children" or "little children" in church sermons. This brings to mind the U. S. legal environment. Federal courts and regulatory agencies have held that it is deceptive and misleading, and thus illegal, for firms to direct promotional messages to children that contain information which children lack the cognitive maturity to adequately evaluate and process, or to withhold substantive information from such messages.
More generally, in the U.S. and many developed societies, consumer protection regulations and statutes mandate affirmative disclosure of information that may not serve the interests of the parties who must reveal the information. For example, lenders are required to disclose to potential borrowers the actual interest rates and other finance charges. The Food and Drug Administration requires that consumers be told about the potential undesirable side effects of pharmaceuticals. In several states, homeowners are required by law to inform potential buyers about known defects in the property.
In my state, a person who had been in prison for many years on a murder conviction was recently fully acquitted in a retrial. The retrial was held because it was discovered that the two prosecutors in the initial trial withheld evidence that cast doubt on their assertions of guilt. The two prosecutors were investigated for a breach of legal ethics.
If affirmative disclosure of contrary or potentially unfavorable information is required in several fields such as business, law, and medicine, is it ethical for religious elites to commonly withhold from their lay audiences information that may run counter to their ideological purposes, while at the same time asserting their questionable pronouncements with certitude? Are present day religious proponents exempt from ethical standards of other fields of endeavor and given the latitude to act according to the behavioral principle said to have been followed by some spokesmen in early Christian history? It has been observed that some early spokesmen, in construing events and differing beliefs of others, appeared to follow the principle, "All is fair in love and war, and religious domination is nothing if not love and war."[3]
Another area in which information is often withheld or offered in a misleadingly incomplete form is in teaching creationism. A retired professor of life sciences at a major southern public university talked to me on several occasions about continuously encountering students who were seeking to become practitioners of life sciences (e.g., veterinarians) and who had been indoctrinated in their pre-university years to believe that evolutionary processes were a scientific hoax. Such students were faced with an agonizing choice. They could change career goals, or discard conflicting religious beliefs. Or, they could lead double, misleading lives based on two contradictory belief systems as some elected to do; i.e., claiming adherence to one belief system on Sundays and Wednesday evenings, and adhering to a conflicting one in their professional lives other times in the week. Is it not deceptive for persons in religious positions who are perceived by young people as authority figures to advocate to youths a belief system that is contrary to rigorously developed evidence accepted by the world`s top scientists without addressing this evidence with a level of instructional accuracy comparable to that at top schools, which do not teach creationism?
In my former Southern Baptist homeland, government interference in the practice of one`s religion was considered an anathema. Now, a number of religious elites seek to utilize federal, state and local governmental agencies to impose their particular religious assertions and beliefs on all persons in the community and society. For example, some demonize public schools for not promoting certain so-called Christian beliefs, which in actuality means the particular beliefs they espouse. Would these religious proponents insist on religious proclamations in public schools if those in a position to determine the religious content were practicing Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims? If not, would this lack of intellectual integrity be "different" because the Christian elites who would promote their particular religious beliefs in public schools know God and God`s will with absolute clarity and certitude, a capability that they possess exclusively?
I am a refugee from the land of those religious elites who claim that God created human beings, but who are afraid to allow the human brain created by God to utilize all of its capabilities in seeking to acquire knowledge and understanding about God, about all of God`s creation, and about God`s desires for human lives, wherever the pursuit of such knowledge leads. Why do these religious elites envision God to be so fragile and impotent that God can`t withstand such inquisitiveness, and that they must protect God and God`s revelations to humans? My desire is not to be associated with those religious elites who are too fearful of losing their religious power over others or their elevated positions to allow religious beliefs and perspectives to be informed by rigorously acquired evidence by outstanding scholars in various disciplines, including early Christian history. I do not want to be among or support those who assert doctrinaire interpretations of highly selective Bible verses, particularly ones that may be problematic to some extent, to subjugate to subservient roles other members of God`s creation based on ethnic, gender, marital status, nationality, and other grounds. It is my wish to be free from religious elites who claim to know God`s will with such clarity and certitude that they are intolerant of differing beliefs and are willing to use governmental agencies to impose their own beliefs on the entire community and society. For instance, how do such Christians differ, other than perhaps in degree, from Muslim zealots who seek to establish so-called Islamic governments? It might be noted that both claim they are doing the will of the same God!
Obviously, I am a refugee from the ideology pursued the past couple of decades by the dominant group of religious elites in the Southern Baptist Convention. According to a newspaper report, a Southern Baptist official responded by saying in essence, "good riddance," when asked about former President Jimmy Carter`s resignation from the SBC. My refugee status undoubtedly constitutes "good riddance" in the eyes of some SBC religious elites. But I am in good company!
Endnotes
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) and Lost Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
[2] Ibid., and Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
[3] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 47.
