I really like Russell Moore's article on the spiritual danger of blogging. Read it and tell him how much you appreciate it.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Insight from Ralph Elliott on Baptist Controversy
Last night I finished (mostly) a paper for my Baptist history class on the Ralph Elliott controversy, which was the first big "moderate vs. conservative" battle that came to the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention. I ran across a quote in a book that Elliott wrote about the controversy that I found interesting.
Here's some background: Ralph Elliott was an Old Testament professor at Midwestern Baptist Seminary who published a commentary on Genesis in 1961 through the Baptist Sunday School Board. Because of who wrote this book and who published it, it was expected to be a model of Southern Baptist belief. It was actually only a model of the modernistic methods of biblical criticism that had infested the seminaries. Elliott said that Adam and Eve weren't real people, that Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, that the flood was not universal, that God didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, etc.
These paragraphs from Elliott's book (see above) give insight into why he got in trouble while the many other professors who believed the same things did not:
"'Doublespeak has become an insidious disease within Southern Baptist life. Through the years, the program at Southern Seminary has acquainted students with the best in current research in the given fields of study. Often, however, this was done with an eye and ear for the 'gallery' and how much the 'church trade' would bear. Professors and students learn to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology and in holy jargon so that although thinking one thing, the speaker calculated so as to cause the hearer to affirm something else. When I taught at Southern Seminary years ago, we often said to one professor [Clyde T. Francisco] who was particularly gifted at this 'doublespeak' game, that if the Southern Baptist Convention should split, he would be the first speaker at both new conventions.
"One of the serious difficulties for me personally during the 'Genesis controversy' was a running debate with a particular Southern professor who constantly counseled me to use the doublespeak technique. When the difficulties came, he said he believed the same thing on these issues, but I got into trouble and he did not because I did not know how to communicate. What he meant was that I did not know how to doublespeak. My contention was that I got into trouble because I sought to communicate an unambiguous message, and so we never found agreement.
"It is my personal belief that this doublespeak across the years has contributed to a lack of nurture and growth and is a major factor in the present problems. The basic question is one of integrity rather than the gift of communication."
My special thanks to the 2 people who cared enough to read to the end.
Here's some background: Ralph Elliott was an Old Testament professor at Midwestern Baptist Seminary who published a commentary on Genesis in 1961 through the Baptist Sunday School Board. Because of who wrote this book and who published it, it was expected to be a model of Southern Baptist belief. It was actually only a model of the modernistic methods of biblical criticism that had infested the seminaries. Elliott said that Adam and Eve weren't real people, that Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, that the flood was not universal, that God didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, etc.
These paragraphs from Elliott's book (see above) give insight into why he got in trouble while the many other professors who believed the same things did not:
"'Doublespeak has become an insidious disease within Southern Baptist life. Through the years, the program at Southern Seminary has acquainted students with the best in current research in the given fields of study. Often, however, this was done with an eye and ear for the 'gallery' and how much the 'church trade' would bear. Professors and students learn to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology and in holy jargon so that although thinking one thing, the speaker calculated so as to cause the hearer to affirm something else. When I taught at Southern Seminary years ago, we often said to one professor [Clyde T. Francisco] who was particularly gifted at this 'doublespeak' game, that if the Southern Baptist Convention should split, he would be the first speaker at both new conventions.
"One of the serious difficulties for me personally during the 'Genesis controversy' was a running debate with a particular Southern professor who constantly counseled me to use the doublespeak technique. When the difficulties came, he said he believed the same thing on these issues, but I got into trouble and he did not because I did not know how to communicate. What he meant was that I did not know how to doublespeak. My contention was that I got into trouble because I sought to communicate an unambiguous message, and so we never found agreement.
"It is my personal belief that this doublespeak across the years has contributed to a lack of nurture and growth and is a major factor in the present problems. The basic question is one of integrity rather than the gift of communication."
My special thanks to the 2 people who cared enough to read to the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
