The Myth of the Majority, revisited
May 31, 2007 in Church, General Christian, SBC
I wanted to revisit an article I wrote a few months ago, entitled the Myth of the Majority.
For the last year or so, I have advised that sections (any section) of the Southern Baptist Convention would do well to quit claiming to represent the “majority” of the SBC. After all, there was a time when it could have been claimed, with some feeling of legitimacy, that moderates represented the “majority” of the SBC. Whether or not that was true may still be something to debate. My point is that it shouldn’t matter whether or not it is true.
The positions of Southern Baptists within the discussion should be based on whether or not the position taken is Biblical and whether or not the words and actions taken in defense of that position are befitting that of a child of God addressing his or her brother or sister in Christ.
As I mentioned in the referenced article, there is no such thing as a uniform majority within the SBC. No one group of people believe “the same” about even 75% of the issues and total, themselves, more than 50% of the total populace of the SBC.
This is problematic when the “majority” becomes the “authority” for any particular point of view. If, on any given subject, the SBC does have a majority consensus of one opinion, does that make that opinion right? I have often been perplexed by the claims of some at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that the restrictions on PPL (otherwise known here at 12 Witnesses as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Non-Policy Policy on Private Prayer Languages” see the 8th paragraph or read Many Concerns or A New Hill) at that institution is in keeping with the majority opinion of the SBC.
When a Seminary begins to claim popular opinion as the basis of its theological standards, they, and we, have a significant problem. It seemed so silly to do so, given that the vast majority of our professors will disagree with the vast majority of our laity on several subjects, the most obvious of which is eschatology. Best to stick to Scripture, rightly divided, as the authority for such decisions and given that Resurgence Architect Paige Patterson is the President there, one would assume that the Biblical foundations for such decisions would be the only moorings needed.
I will reiterate that I have said that the Board of Trustees, led by their President, have the right to make such a decision, although I think it is unwise and such actions will lead us into division and irrelevancy. The same thought applies to the Boards of Trustees at the IMB and NAMB as well.
The majority of the SBC doesn’t exist as a homogenized voting block. Moreover, the majority of the SBC is occasionally wrong about things and I know that pro-Conservative Resurgence SBC pastors and laity would support that statement. That is why it is so wrong to lay the claim that the majority of the SBC should be the reason for doing anything.
I have argued that the case for cessationism is not a strong one, and yet it certainly falls within the realm of orthodox Christianity. The case for continualism (I am a continualist - though I do not practice glossolalia of any kind) is also an orthodox interpretation of Scripture.
I have concluded that the appeal to the majority is strictly a response to the inability to legitimately state that the opposing view is unorthodox, or even heretical.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that it’s been tried. Tammy Reed Ledbetter and other authors for the SB Texan and Baptist Press have repeatedly called PPL and its practitioners “neo-Pentecostal” in an attempt to downgrade that view point and practice. Still, that just hasn’t stuck as most people in the conversation have minds that are capable of earnest critique.
So, there is an appeal to the masses. The majority will believe as we do. If we can’t argue it to the exclusion of all other viewpoints biblically (and no one can - no matter which side they are on), then we will claim to represent the majority of the SBC.
——————-
BTW, I know that this applies to the Baptism guideline at the IMB as well. The reason that the Baptism Guideline is not the subject of such debate, I believe, is that it is solely an IMB issue, while PPL now involves both mission boards and one of our seminaries.







