Author: art rogers
The Myth of the Majority
Thursday, January 11th, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
In discussing SBC issues over the last year, I have heard the rationale given, “the majority of the SBC does not believe in (fill in the blank).”
I always advise that this is a dangerous road, as the majority opinion is not necessarily the right opinion. Today, though, as I read Micah Fries post, A Big Tent Revival, it occurred to me that the aforementioned rationale was a myth.
You see, this is a simplified version of the SBC:
This is not the SBC that some are trying to create. It is the SBC that exists now.
Each circle represents certain non-essential belief sets. All of these belief sets are conservative, inerrancy & sufficiency affirming Southern Baptists. For most, many of the non-essential beliefs overlap in certain areas.
Remember, all of the circles agree on the essentials, to use Spurgeon’s word. Only non-essentials are represented in the diversification.
Focus on the blue circle toward the top right. Notice that it overlaps almost every circle somewhere. It doesn’t consume all circles, though. When someone says: “The majority of the SBC believes ‘this’” about any one particular non-essential, they may well be speaking the truth.
The mistake is the assumption that the majority of the SBC believes exactly like them on every non-essential. In other words, we may agree exactly on this issue, but that does not mean we agree on every issue. We may agree on alcohol and Prayer Languages, but that does not mean we agree on Calvinism, traditional worship/church structure or whatever else happens to come up.
There is no “Uniform Majority.” However, the rationale of the majority is being wielded about as if it were to say, “The majority of the SBC agrees exactly in all the areas of diversity now under discussion.”
If you want to talk about people who are uniform in almost every area of non-essentials, you are talking about a group that is more accurately represented by this gray area here:
The group that stands out on the top right agrees with each other exclusively. Notice that they are a vast minority within the whole SBC, when viewed in this light. However, because they agree on one issue or another with others in the SBC, they assume and assert that they represent the majority of the SBC on all issues. When all issues are considered, however, they are as much a minority as everyone else. In that sense, everyone in almost every other circle could say the same thing.
We have reached a place when the inhabitants of one belief set is trying to carve away those outside its circle. I think they earnestly believe that they will only lose the fringes of the SBC - a small number in their mind.
Unfortunately, to achieve the uniformity desired, they must cut away almost everyone - because almost everyone disagrees with some other Southern Baptist on SOME issue. I think they might be amazed by the number of those they think are “just like them,” but who would be excluded if they got their way.
As for the whole group, my friends and I, if I may speak for them, are not trying to widen the tent other than to re-establish the levels of cooperation that have already been stripped away from inerrancy minded conservatives. To say that we are liberals or that we advocate the bringing in of liberals to the SBC is a misrepresentation. It is done by those who prefer to give a false account of others at the expense of their own integrity because it might help them “win.” Adrian Rogers called them “Tire Slashers.” Anything for “The Cause.”
We want the SBC we grew up in to quit shrinking to a tailored fit of uniformity that suits a certain group. If allowed to define the ground of cooperation, any small group of people will eliminate almost everybody on some point or another. Then, the SBC will be a tiny group who have little division and no impact on the world.
You see, this SBC is a myth:
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
January 11th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Dear Brother Art,
I’m not sure I understand. Maybe I’ll just wait to comment until Marty writes about it.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
January 11th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Comment of the new year by JRY!
I always knew it, the SBC is a myth.
I like those charts, did you get a Mac? Only 5 months to iPhone, y’know.
It might be mentioned, unless I missed it, that those in your gray area not only agree with each other strongly, but many believe that they are exclusively right, so the other circles (which I’m assuming are randomly colored, you pastel loving man), in the view of these, are not Southern Baptist anyway; if they were Southern Baptist, they would be GRAY, dadgummit. They are just interlopers, carpet baggers, or in the words of one fellow, “apostates.”
*sigh*
January 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Art,
First, you are spot on! Bravo!
May I introduce you to a guy named Micheal Polyani. He has written a book entitled “Personal Knowledge”. He is a chemist turned philosopher and this book is the equivilent of mental hazing. He is not a Christian, but may be Jewish. However, he states on pg 18:
The avowed purpose of the exact sciences is to establish complete intellectual control over experience in terms of precise rules which can be formally set out and empirically tested. Could that ideal be fully achieved, all truth and all error could henceforth be ascribed to an exact theory of the universe, while we who accept this theory would be relieved of any occasion for exercising our personal judgment: we should only have to follow the rules faithfully.
Remove “exact sciences” and insert “SBC supposed majority”.
Obviously, this is a myth. It will not happen. Somewhere at sometime someone will disagree and the battle will start up again. when you try to for compliance, the battle never ends because we have a falicy in our minds that someone else is the one who is wrong. But I would say this is their ideal.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Is it just me or does the last SBC look like Mickey Mouse?
What really decides what a Baptist is? I don’t understand the differences between Baptists even on abortion and homosexuality just to name a few.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
M-I-C. See ya real soon!
K-E-Y. Why? Be cause we like you!
M-O-U-S-E!
Hey aren’t we boycotting Disney? Oh wait, that’s over now
Sorry, I just had to do that.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Art,
An old term popped into my head when reading this post about the “Myth of the Majority” That term is “The Tyranny of the Minority.” I think this is an apt description of the SBC now.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Something else that those whose primary support for their position is “this is what the majority of Southern Baptists believe” fail to consider is that not all Southern Baptists who share their particular interpretation on a point of doctrine are in favor of excluding those who have a different view. So there is division within the supposed majority. Like the saying goes, “When you get two Southern Baptists together, you have three opinions.” Some are trying to create a new climate where there is only one Southern Baptist opinion, but ultimately the only way that will happen is to end up with only one Southern Baptist.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am
It would be an ironic tragedy if certain people, in an apparently power-driven push for uniformity, destroyed the very characteristic that that most reflected the SBC’s fundamental distinction.
Art, I didn’t read through all the forms used for nomination, but I’m curious about one thing: is there a form for “PRIEST”? Seems like we’ll be needing that one of these days.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Jeff,
Now we just have to wait for him to do a whole ‘nother article at SBC Outpost on the subject and wait for the discussion to take off there…
Marty,
I used light colors to better use the transparency in showing the overlap behind all the shapes.
I did this with my windows based program, you Apple based wierdo.
Tim,
Great point. I think the picture actually reflects just that idea, if others who are willing to cooperate are reflected in the areas that overlap. They are in the blue circle, but are willing to work with those of other belief sets.
All,
Really good thoughts. Kevin & David, I am noting it is you two who said those folks were a Mickey Mouse outfit.
art
January 12th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Kevin beat me to it! I was thinking the same thing and defintely thought that if some people have their way, we WILL become a Mickey Mouse outfit!
Art, this gets my nomination for SBC post of the year, so far! Excellent analysis. I agree completely.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Alan,
The best blog post concerning the SBC in the last eleven days? How generous!
January 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Art,
You did a great job on this article…
Unfortunately you are not one of us “Gray Circle” Baptist therefore you are not really a Baptist at all and your opinion does not matter.
By the way the proper name for us “Gray Circle” Baptist is “Landmark” but you did not hear that from me…
January 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Art,
How about this for a crazy idea. Before San Antonio ask every church to present two delegates with voting power to the convention. These delegates would be voted on by the church body as a whole, but the catch is that each individual church wold be required to locate, record and acknowledge a vote from at least 75% of their membership role. A person doubled, tripled, or beyond on membership roles would be allowed to vote only once. The two delegates would then be given the exclusive right of the local church to vote at the convention on a denominational level. The delegates would reflect the majority opinion of the members of said local church. Added to this would be the requirement that all resolutions be submitted two months in advance and then mailed to all churches one month in advance for the voting delegates. At this point we may just be able to get an idea of just what a “majority” of Southern Baptists believe. Yeah, it is as possible as getting a SWBTS tour guide to admit that B.H. really was holding a cigar. I can dream can’t I?
Brian
January 12th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Art,
I just call it like I see it!
I think your award is a paper cup or something.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:00 am
The cigar—now that, my friends, really is a myth. Of course, Bro. B. H. did smoke them, but he apparently never had one in this particular portrait. But, it is a story filled with conspiracy and Baptist idiosyncratic Victorianism, completely devoid of substance and yet incriminatory toward the generations before us, so it fits the present metanarrative quite well. I expect a blog entitled B.H.’s Cigar to pop up any time now. Maybe somebody could Crayola in a mint julep in the other hand and a Robert Tilton prayer cloth on his lap, and then old B.H. would be ready to enter the twenty-first century of Southern Baptist life.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Bart-
Correct me if I am wrong, but some of his contemporaries would not need a Crayola, eh? Or maybe it was only their wives…
January 13th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Basic timely reminder on an icy winter morning:
Any year’s version of the Baptist Faith & Message (1925, 1963, 2000) is REPRESENTATIVE of the personal theological persuasions of EVERY KIND of Baptist ever walking on the planet Earth, and CAN be the basis for our COOPERATION in the SBC IF we WILL cooperate (capital letters for emphasis; have no pastel or basic shape options). Not to agree with this statement is not to know the BF&M, Baptists, or both. Everyone, permit each other person among us to choose the version of the BF&M to which he will adhere, and then everyone take one or two steps forward together for the cause of Christ.
Stay warm!
January 13th, 2007 at 9:41 am
In reference to Brian Hatcher’s post (well most of it - I didn’t understand the stuff at the end), I have been wondering - as a newbie to the whole process - about just this kind of arrangement. Carrying the issue a step further, if a church is small and can’t afford to send a messenger, then that church gets no vote at all; how is that fair? I’m all for getting the materials to churches in advance so that a church can direct it’s messenger(s) how to vote, but I would further suggest that churches who cannot get a representative to convention be afforded some other means of voting. Then we’d really begin to know where the majority of Southern Baptists stand on given issues. What will it take to start this ball rolling for this kind of change (and I don’t mean a miracle!)?
January 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Good thoughts, Chris. I’ve often wondered the same thing. I am one of those heretics who, in 20 years of Southern Baptist life, has never had the financial resources to travel to an SBC meeting. BEsides, until last year, they didn’t appear to be that interesting, anyway … everything seemed to be a “slam dunk” before anyone showed up. And, besides, I couldn’t imagine hauling off enough freebies from the display hall to pay for the event.
But if they can do live streaming broadcasts of the convention, why can’t we have electronic registration and participation at the convention through the internet? Why can’t we have password-authorized voting via the internet by the elected registrants from each church? This is the 21st century, after all.
And I’m all for Brian’s suggestion. I think too many of our churches are padding their votes and exerting unwarranted influence behind a ruse of “ghost man” members.
Stay warm!
Geoff
January 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Bart,
I’ve seen that picture on numerous occasions. SOMETHING is there and painted over with a slightly greenish paint. His fingers are clearly in position that suggests he is holding something.
Frankly, though I never thought it was that big a deal, as you mention that it is documented that he smoked cigars.
Are you kidding or is there really a theory that BH’s painting has been staged to look like there was a cigar that was covered up? If so, it’s the first I’ve heard of it. Do tell…
Chris, (and Geoff)
The idea that the SBC could be held in simultaneous regional gatherings that are linked by video would solve many problems. This idea made its way around the blogosphere last year. It would save money for the individuals who have to travel less. It would potentially raise the attendance overall as no one would be eliminated by cross country travel. It would certainly take away regional preferences that, some say, we will face in Texas this year and got Frank Page elected on the first ballot last year.
To get this done, the SBC is going to have to call out for it. It can be made to happen by the Executive Committee, if they are convinced that the SBC wants it.
Make no mistake. Change is hard, whether in a local church or in the “World’s Largest Protestant Denomination.” It would take a change of mindset, but it will take a change in process as well. New processes would have to be invented while the old processes were continued in the mean time. It would have to work the very first time and with no hitches, or cries for the plan to be scrapped would drown it. The communication of the idea would have to be done very well. Obviously, it would be a massive undertaking.
The best way for such a plan to succeed would be to take it slow and in steps that could be more easily achieved. If we started out with two sites, we could work hard to establish just the one connection and make sure there were no issues. Once two sites were well established, more sites could more easily be added.
The down side is that many people will not want this for personal reasons. A lot of pastors use the catch up with friends from college and seminary and are now spread out over the country. Others use the convention as a vacation planning opportunity. They use their conference time and money to get to the convention site and then spend the time at the end of the week, and even the week following, for a little vacation. The church gets them there and so they save money and some vacation time.
Needless to say, these are the regular attenders, and are not likely to care to make the change. If change comes, and it should, it would probably take a champion, or several champions, well respected and well placed within the current structure.
More than you wanted to know?
January 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Marty,
You are correct, sir.
Art,
The painting was one of my favorites. In fact, terrified to face oral exams, I once sat under B. H. for a couple of hours and tried (unsuccessfully) to gather my composure before going in. I, too, scrutinized it carefully. I, too, came to exactly the same conclusion as you—that there was a cigar originally that had been painted over.
But, I researched the matter and could find absolutely no substantiation for the allegation. I asked H. Leon McBeth and James Leo Garrett, and they assured me that the cigar myth was pure fiction. Much like the one about the guy who fell asleep in class and his buddy told him he had been asked to pray.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:49 am
And the theory you mentioned at the end…I typed poorly if I implied that. The conspiracy theory is that there WAS a cigar and it WAS covered up, not that it was staged to look like that happened.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Chris,
Certainly my plan is fraut with sticky places. Perhaps a proxy system could be put in place, or the convention would enter a phase of technology where the church could join in, vote, and fully participate through the internet, or conference calling. The regional video conferencing would be incredible. Maybe Willow Creek could tell them how since they manage to host an entire conference every year worldwide. My point is that unless the entire convention body is actually represented in some way it will be impossible to fully present a “majority” opinion for the whole body. For instance, if the convention was not in Farnk Page’s territory this past year, would the results have been different? I would think not, but it is a fun question to throw around. Now, another thing the idea would do is that it would force every church to clean up their membership roles. Now, we wouldn’t be 16 million plus strong anymore, but oh well. Maybe we could be honest with ourselves then.
Bart,
I too have spent many hours (okay minutes) staring at said painting of B.H. Carroll. I will admit that there is cause to believe that his fingers are merely resting in his coat pocket. It does not explain the odd shadow there. The truth is out there though. Where is Mulder and Scully when you need them? The myth goes on though.
Brian
January 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Bart,
Perhaps he had a palsy? [kidding!]
Dr, “Hatchet” Harry Hunt (taught Hebrew) once told my Hebrew class of the student, unprepared for a test, who was asked to pray. He prayed for an hour, effectively postponing the test. While no one was willing to interrupt him, said Dr. Hunt, he was disciplined quite severely. If I remember the story, Dr. Hunt said he was flunked from the class and was told if anything ever happened again - in any area of his life - he would be removed from school.
You might have heard that story, Bart, or might find someone who knows it. Dr. Hunt claimed it was a first hand account, so, of course, I believed him.
Art
January 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
THAT one, I never heard. Instead, I heard the one about a student who fell asleep in class. His neighbor nudges him in the middle of the lecture, awakening him, and tells him, “Dr. _____ just called on you to pray.” So, right in the middle of class, a student stands up and starts to pray aloud. I’ve heard numerous people tell me that they themselves were personally there to see this happen, although it is always a different professor and slightly different circumstances.
Such phenomena are common: Johnny Carson and Zsa Zsa Gabor’s cat, Eric Clapton and Phil Keaggy. These urban legends just get started and won’t stop. I think we’ll need Brian and the X-Files to get them all worked out.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Great post. It is always good to make it so that any kindergartener could understand it. And, like Marty, I note the pastels. I saw your excuse for them, but I still like noting it.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I can’t say a know of a great deal of myths at SWBTS. I do know of a number of funny stories. I remember the first time I met Hemphill. That was an interesting experience. I am not sure I should repeat it on a public forum. It was in the RAC before he was going to play racquetball. Yes, that was a truly unique day.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I thought my post, with its non-pastel-ic emphatics, was a good one–and one of the last comments still on topic here . . . “>)