Talk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 9 September 2009 (→‎Straw poll: Created new Straw Poll 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChristianity: Baptist B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.

Repetition

It seems to me that the "Strategy for Takeover" and "How It Worked" sections overlap quite a bit. Any opinions? Eugeneacurry (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.10.1 (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the redundancy you describe would benefit from cleanup.Afaprof01 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson a Revisionist?

The article states that Paige Patterson is a "revisionist theologian" without citing any sources. What criteria are being used to make this assessment? Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal or Moderate & Conservative or Reactionary

The whole tug-of-war between those preferring the labels liberal/conservative and those prefering moderate/reactionary (or ultraconservative) in this article is getting a little stale. Can't we come to some kind of reasonable agreement? It seems to me that many of the people who left to found the Alliance of Baptist are very deserving of the title liberal while the majority of the CBF is not. Likewise, those on the other side of the dispute were certainly all conservatives but I think the term ultra-conservative really doesn't fit for many of us. so how about a compromise? Lets call the Alliance liberal, the CBF moderate and recognize that there is a spectrum of conservatism in the current SBC leadership. Eugeneacurry 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion. That is an excellent distinction. Would you be so kind as to apply that algorithm to this article? Afaprof01 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing or Settled Controversy?

I wonder how accurate it is to describe this controversy as something current and on-going. It seems that the controversy has been settled decisively (for better or for worse) in favor of the "conservative-er" faction. The Alliance of Baptists pulled out and the CBF pulled out and in doing so the great bulk of the moderate (and the handful of truely liberal) congregations withdrew from the SBC. All the presidents have been conservative for some time now, all the seminary presidents are conservative, the overwhelming bulk of the seminary staff are conservative-- it seems to me that the fight is over. Is England involved in an "ongoing" controversy because a couple centuries back the American colonies rebelled? Eugeneacurry 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point. However, with large, strong, influential groups such as CBF and BGCT not (yet) being denominations and still considering themselves Southern Baptist, it's too early to say it's over, and it is far from settled. The SBC controversy is very much ongoing. I believe history would call the American Revolution an ongoing struggle during its first century. Thanks for your labor on this very important article. Afaprof01 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What level of resolution is neccesary to determine that the controversy is indeed concluded? Will the SBC have to be stridently conservative for 30 years, 40 years, or a full century? You mention the CBF and say that it is not a denomination but it most certainly is by the so-called duck test. The CBF has its own seminaries, funds its own missionaires, is a member of the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches, has no formal parent body, etc, etc, etc. True, there are some churches (First Baptist Church of Richmond, VA) that are dual alligned with the SBC and the CBF but then again there are churches that are dual aligned with both the SBC and the ABC-USA (First Baptist Church of San Francisco, CA). Are the American baptists not a denomination? Eugeneacurry 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POV statement in the Introduction

To say that the conservatives removed theologically moderate leaders from positions of power within SBC agencies is entirely true and fair. But to go further and say that conservatives removed theologically moderate AND "methodologically democratic" leadership is nonsense and polemical. The very article [1] cited to support this serious accusation itself refutes the charge. How did the conservatives take control? By effecting a bloody coup? By manipulating the legal system to their advantage? No, as the cited reference says, "The most basic idea underly [sic] Pressler's strategy was for the fundamentalists to successfully elect presidents from year to year... The fundamentalists basically brought more people to vote than there were moderates and as a result fundamentalist Adrian Rogers won the presidency in 1979... The messengers who attended the convention elected the president of the SBC. The fundamentalists simply had to go to fundamentalist churches and convince people to attend and vote for their desired president... The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents... The fundamentalists won over the majority of these people because they were such excellent speakers." Winning elections, getting out the vote, persuasion through speeches-- this all sounds highly democratic to me. Eugeneacurry 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a highly biased article against the conservative camp. It needs major work. Theriddles 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article takes the viewpoint of some sort of hostile coup when, as another commenter said, the Criswell group brought more people/congregations to vote. Instead of 'take over', the term 'reform' or another more neutral term would be better to make the viewpoint more neutral 216.47.92.40 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Pressler link

This article's link associated with Houston Judge Paul Pressler is clearly wrong. It takes you to the Wikipedia article on Paul S. Pressler who is the recent president and CEO of Gap and also a past president of Walt Disney. These two men are so different this mistake is laughable. For examples, Paul S. Pressler is a New York native, a liberal Democrat, and his former employer Walt Disney corporation was one of the strongest supporters of gay rights during his tenure there. In contrast, Judge Paul Pressler is a Texas native, a conservative Republican and one of the staunchest opponents of gay rights imaginable.

In case there is any doubt these are two different men, here are their comparative bios I just harvested off the Internet.

Paul S. Pressler

Born: 1956

Gender: Male Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Business Party Affiliation: Democratic

Nationality: United States Executive summary: CEO of Gap, 2002-07

Wife: Mindy (two children)

University: BS Business Economics, State University of New York at Oneonta (1978) Gap President and CEO (2002-07) Disney Chairman of Parks & Resorts Division Disneyland President of Disneyland Resorts (1998-2002) Disneyland President of Disneyland Parks and Hotels (1994-98) Disney EVP and GM Disney Stores (1992-94) Disney Senior VP Consumer Products (1990-92) Disney Senior VP of Disney Licensing (1987-90) Kenner Parker Toys VP Marketing & Design (1982-87) Member of the Board of Avon (2005-) Member of the Board of Gap (2002-) Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Board of Directors The Business Council Children Affected by AIDS Foundation

In contrast:

Judge Paul Pressler - CNP President Executive Committee 1988-90, member 1984, 1996, 1998; justice, Texas Court of Appeals, retired; former member, Texas Legislature; practiced law for 12 years at Vinson and Elkins; appointed District Judge, 1970; appointed Justice, Texas Court of Appeals, 1978; active in conservative movement in the Southern Baptist Convention; board member, KHCB (Christian radio); member, Texas Philosophical Society; Southern Baptist Convention, Boys Country, Salvation Army; Phillips Exeter Academy; graduate, Princeton University.

Member of National Religious Broadcasters Board of Directors, current or past> See: The 2005 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention With Focus On Mel Gibson's The Passion Recut and also see: The 2005 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention With Focus On Michael Rood

For further information about Judge Paul Pressler and his role in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, see Judge Paul Pressler, A Hill on Which to Die (Nashville: Broadman & Holdman, 1999). 66.245.126.145 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article does not meet Wikipedia Policies Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle and a non-negotiable policy.

It makes blatant accusations, false characterizations, and uses unbiased labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmitchell (talk • contribs) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Section Heading

I renamed sections A strategy for takeover and The takeover to The conservative strategy and The "Controversy" respectively for POV reasons. Some would consider what happened a takeover, but others would consider it a "resurgence". I believe these are nuetral titles.Ltwin (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fundamentalist

This article does an awful lot of labeling this and that as "fundamentalist."
Aside from POV issues, it is not even good style to use one such a label over and over-- all the more when "fundamentalist" is a fairly misunderstood term.--Carlaude (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

I agree that simply dropping one half of the current title for this article would amount pushing a POV. But the title is awkwardly long as it stands. Could we all agree to some shorter name like "Southern Baptist Convention Rightist Shift"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that yes the reduction of the name to "conservative resurgence" does seem like it would be non npov. I do agree that a better name that captures the essence of both terms would be better. "Southern Baptist Convention Rightist Shift" or "SBC Conservative Shift" would seem to capture this in npov terms. However, I don't know if this controversy has ever been expressed as a "shift" before. In any case, if the name is changed there should be a redirect as most people seem to refer to it either as a resurgence or a takeover. Ltwin (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal from AFAProf01
I seriously regret someone bringing up this issue again. It has been hashed and rehashed so many times and in so many places. There is so much history and so many deep feelings. For a younger generation, perhaps like many of you, our recollections and concern about nomenclature may sound like stories of the Civil War—interesting, but not all that relevant today.
The names applied ARE EXTREMELY RELEVANT. "Shift" is very polite but an incredible understatement.
  • "Fundamentalist Takeover" is the name applied by those labeled (by themselves or others) as “liberal,” “moderate,” or “Mainstream.” "Takeover" is accurate, in no way an overstatement—just "rough around the edges." The stated goals of the Resurgence/Takeover meet virtually all the technical and theological definitions of the term “Fundamentalist" as may be seen in the BFM/2000. It is not a stretch, but also is "rough around the edges."
  • “Conservative Resurgence” is the name applied by those labeled (by themselves or others) as “conservatives” or “Fundamentalists.” "Resurgence" is a mouthful, but polite. The entire phrase is the term chosen by the more conservative group and the designers.
If you Google "conservative resurgence," you'll find that is a phrase chosen years ago by the architects of the resurgence/takeover. Another Google of "fundamentalist takeover" will bring up sizable list of references. By leaving it as it is and has been for such a long time, it covers all the bases for both sides. Our article cannot settle the debate, nor lend credence to either side. It does, I think, do its its best to present both POVs fairly.
I do not believe any good can come from exhumation of these remains. It definitely WILL awaken the proverbial "sleeping dogs," call fresh attention to an ugly time in a prominent part of Christianity—giving more fodder to the critics, and divert valuable energies away from what to some are "Matters of Eternal Significance" on the "Christianity" template.
Thank you for even considering my deep feelings. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second Afaprof's plea. For better or worse, the two viewpoints are each represented in this article's title, one worked out after a lot of prayerful thought and heated discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but whatever the name is, that's NOT an acceptable option. On Wikipedia, if there are two possible names for something, one is picked and the other is redirected. The Virginia Tech massacre isn't Virginia Tech shootings/tragedy/massacre - it's massacre and the others are redirects. Maybe neither of these options is correct and something completely neutral like Southern Baptist leadership history, Southern Baptist Convention leadership change, or Southern Baptist Convention leadership transition. But the current name is not an acceptable option. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Do_not_use_an_article_name_that_suggests_a_hierarchy_of_articles. Wikipedia:Naming conflict suggests, among its standards for determining the correct name, preferring the name that the subject uses for itself. Obviously, if that standard is used, the Southern Baptist Convention prefers "Conservative Resurgence". Using a Google news search, "conservative resurgence" wins 558 - 315. When using all g-hits, conservative resurgence wins 21400 - 9730. I have no particular preference between "leadership history, leadership change", "leadership transition", some other similarly neutral "made up by Wikipedia" title, or "conservative resurgence", but neither the current state of dueling titles nor "fundamentalist takeover", which is an extreme POV and flies in the face of our guideline of using the subject's self-identified title, are acceptable. --B (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be in favor of "leadership change" or similar term. This was no a simple leadership transition. This was a process which took years and affected more than just the officers of the convention. "Leadership history" too me would would be the title of an article on actual people who led the SBC, not on a shift in the direction and outlook of an entire denomination. I also would question the neutrality of "Conservative resurgence" as many people would contend that that is a pov itself as "resurgence" suggest just that conservatives were reasserting their positions. However, some feel that they went beyond just reasserting their values, they took over the convention. So, to me, it doesn't seem like its going to be acceptable to say "fundamentalist takeover" is definitely out but "conservative resurgence" is ok because it sounds nicer and is what the SBC wants it to be called. Oh and just for the record I'm not a baptist. Ltwin (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about conservative shift or conservative movement? "Conservative movement" gets close to the number of gnews-hits of "conservative resurgence". --B (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's really hard to come into this "cold" and "get it." When churches have split in history, a really POV term got used: "schism." Today the news wires are reporting that conservative Episcopalians are "leaving" over the "U.S. church's ordination of an openly gay bishop and other liberal trends." In the SBC we have significant differences:
  • the traditional SBC leadership employees were systematically fired
  • elected officials were replaced by a well-planned and well-publicized conspiracy of "stacking the deck"--according to the designers and planners.
  • Long-term missionaries were disenfranchised and terminated if they refused to sign a pledge-like affidavit to support the new administration and its mandatory . Many came home after years on the mission field.
  • Distinguished tenured and well published seminary professors were summarily fired because they dared not to follow the new party line either their classes, or in their writings. Academic freedom became completely nonexistent. In fact, one seminary was put on probation by its accrediting agency for the patent lack of long-respected and accepted academic freedom. It's all well documented, and I'll be glad for furnish URLs on request.
  • If you've wondered why research from critical Baptist scholars has virtually vanished from search databases, it's because original thought and bold researching is no longer allowed. With them it's not just "publish or perish," it's "publish what we want to read and that agrees with our biases, or perish."
Technically a schism requires a split into two or more groups. So "schism" doesn't apply here. The "Moderates" showed great restraint and maturity in choosing not to form a competitive denomination, although they had the strength and following to do it. The primary new group formed by the "Moderates" is Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It refuses to be called a denomination, although it has formed all new missionary outreaches, primarily to provide place of service to those disenfranchised by the refusal to sign legalistic pledges and contracts. It runs seminaries, ordains ministers, chaplains and others (without regard to gender). It commissions missionaries and raises support for missionaries it sends at home and abroad. It describes itself as "a fellowship of Baptist Christians and churches who share a passion for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and a commitment to Baptist principles of faith and practice." No one doubts the "passion for the Great Commission" part applies to the Fundamentalist/Conservative group, but the part about historic "Baptist principles of faith and practice," while given lip-service by the New SBC, bears little resemblance to those that existed prior to the takeover. "Conservative movement," "Rightist Shift" (LtWin is correct that "shift" has never been used), and LtWin is also completely correct in saying "they went beyond just reasserting their values, they took over the convention."

If you review the article's history and talk pages, there have been very few complaints about the article's present title. As far as a double title, that was an effort to strike a compromise and defer to both sides. The Moderates were already referring to the process as a "Fundamentalist Takeover," and the Conservatives from the beginning called their mission a "Conservative Resurgence."

We cannot rewrite history. It fits every definition of a "hostile takover," including the financial part since it a lot of very expensive real estate and huge trust funds were taken over.

I quote from the Wiki article some words that have never been challenged since written here:

  • traumatic disagreement that captured national attention
  • it fragmented Southern Baptist fellowship and (was) "far more serious than a controversy."
  • "a self-destructive, contentious, one-sided feud that at times took on combative characteristics."
  • All leaders of Southern Baptist agencies (seminaries, colleges, mission and other boards, administrators of the very huge beaucracy, were summarily replaced, most of them after long years of faithful, distinguished, and notable service.
  • The new Baptist Faith and Message includes some arguably fundamental provisions:
    • "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband"
    • "The office of pastor is limited to men"

In conclusion, the article's title describes the actions of only one side: Resurgence (inaccurate term preferred by the new leadership), and Takeover (a term well-established in connection with what happened). By one side I mean it only refers to the Fundamentalists/Conservatives. There's nothing in the title about the Moderates who were kicked out.

Today we don't dodge the "Takeover" term in business, and we often prefix it with the adjective "hostile." In the same sense that a corporate board of directors maneuvers and politics to "stuff" the board with directors of a certain ilk, that's exactly what happened deliberately and methodically in the SBC Takeover. If we need to drop one of the two terms, the really correct one is "Takeover." I have never seen a defense of the euphemism "Resurgence." It would be very difficult if not impossible to justify.

Afaprof has said it well. He/she knows first-hand what he/she has written for us to consider.

To get the ball rolling, here are some brainstorm items: Southern Baptist Convention's

  • Rightest Takeover
  • Ideological Purge
  • Ideological Purification
  • Hostile Takeover
  • Internal Control Seizure
  • Internal Assumption of Control
  • Coup
  • Religious Cleansing

PLEASE, FOLKS. EITHER VOTE "NO CHANGE" OR MAKE SUGGESTIONS. THANKS. Oberlin (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This isn't a vote. 2. Your retelling of history is a bit on the biased side and isn't even worth dignifying with a response. 3. The naming of the article is simply the most encyclopedic title for the article - it is not an endorsement of the events. 4. The current name is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES going to be permitted. This is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. The article is going to have one name, not two names. 5. Your proposed names are all ridiculous biased titles. --B (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
B, are you always so insulting, authoritarian and ill-mannered ("ridiculous"; "isn't even worth dignifying with a response"; "NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES going to be permitted")? Oberlin wasn't writing an article, so NPOV shouldn't have to apply. The user was trying to communicate with fellow editors. And I don't know about "vote," but we're always striving for consensus, right??? If you read the above carefully, you'll see that the so-called "ridiculous biased titles" fall under the heading "To get the ball rolling, here are some brainstorm items:" That does not mean "proposed."! I don't think being an Admin entitles anyone to be this rude. How about trying to be more of a mentor to us peons. I think you owe User:Oberlin an apology! And you've sure discouraged me from putting any more of my thoughts on here in any detail. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were probably proposed in sarcasm as opposed to serious suggestions, but there is no way that, other than "coup", these are even useful as brainstorming topics. Some people (not necessarily Oberlin, just in general) think that Wikipedia articles about subjects they don't like need to be highly critical. A neutral article that doesn't take sides isn't appropriate because, after all, any fool can see that Person XYZ is wrong, twisted, and evil, and so a "neutral" article will paint them as wrong, twisted, and evil. Call it systemic bias on Wikipedia's part. Articles, like this one, need to stick to reporting the facts. "Fundamentalist takeover" is a highly judgmental title. The ones suggested by Oberlin are mostly even worse. "Conservative resurgence", while admittedly slightly leaning in the pro-SBC POV, is the subject's preferred name, which Wikipedia recognizes as having some weight. I think "conservative movement" works much better - it removes "resurgence" (which implies the pro-SBC viewpoint that they were conservative all along and only just reasserted themselves). As for the current title, no, it isn't acceptable under any circumstances. Wikipedia doesn't use ridiculous titles like this. --B (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oberlin's summary looks pretty straightforward to me. I can't disagree with your characterization of some of the titles, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about calling it some kind of controversy, such as "SBC Conservative Controversy" or maybe "SBC Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy"? Ltwin (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy is that it refers specifically to the Presbyterian schism, not to this one. Maybe "conservative-modernist split"? The problem with anything like that, though is that then we are making up our own term. Another alternative (outside the box) would be to fold this article into a series of articles on Southern Baptist history that is done chronologically and named by dates. That way, there is no judgment on it at all. --B (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME says in part concerning the Name of an Article, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Afaprof01 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring "and there is no good reason to change it". There's a very good reason to change it - it violates our naming conventions. That rule means that we don't need to have a debate about changing Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Tech shootings every week. It doesn't mean that we can't correct a clearly inappropriate name. Dueling names is NOT our naming convention on Wikipedia. It's going to be changed - the question is to what. I'm all for finding something mutually agreeable, but any admin looking at this is going to tell you the same thing - it's going to be changed. --B (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading up on the dispute and thinking about this last night and I realized what one of the problems is. Both the CBF and the SBC are very much fundamentalist and conservative. Our liberals are still more conservative than anyone else's conservatives. It wasn't a "fundamentalist takeover" because fundamentalists were already in charge. It was a power struggle between the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-ultra-conservatives. --B (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Neutral name for this article

The current name is not acceptable because it implies an article hierarchy. People supportive of the takeover call it a "conservative resurgence" and those opposed call it a "fundamentalist takeover". Another name that gets a lot of g-hits is "Conservative movement". What is the best name for the article in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines? B (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two suggestions were posted above too - SBC Conservative Controversy" or maybe "SBC Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy" Ltwin (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fundamentalist takeover" is merely pejorative. A.J.A. (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the longer discussion above, and I'd like to add some comments. We don't call the 2000 election the "Republican takeover" or the 2008 election the "Democratic takeover"—and we certainly don't call them the "reichwing rethuglican takeover" and "socialist moonbat takeover". Yes, people organized to win an election and then systematically replaced the subordinate leadership with supporters and generally changed policy to align with the preferences of the majority. Guess what? The SBC has a democratic polity and that's how democracy works. If replacing the "traditional leadership" is scandalous to you, maybe you should become a Catholic. A.J.A. (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(B checks to see if Socialist moonbat takeover is still a red link) --B (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "SBC Rightist Revolution" or "SBC Rightist Reorganization"? The SBC's leadership has moved in an undeniably rightist direction and "revolution" is ambiguous: the American Revolution is generally seen as a positive development whereas the Russian Revolution is generally seen as a negative development. At the same time "reorganization" implies the ideologically motivated purges Afaprof01 and others don't want whitewashed out of memory. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rightist" seems more like a made-up word, not a term that anyone is using to apply to the incident. --B (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the people involved called themselves conservatives and moderates, not rightists and leftists (we're not talking about Latin American guerrillas here) and not fundamentalists and modernists or liberals (they called each other those things). I don't think revolution or reorganization fit; the formal nature of authority never changed, the structure wasn't reorganized, and all the organs of denominational life went on as before, just with leaders of a more conservative orientation. Post-resurgence leaders held office for the same reasons pre-resurgence leaders did, they were voted in or were appointed by the same office that had always made that appointment.
I understand that from the perspective of the moderates the important thing was the fact that they (or their friends and allies) lost their jobs, but from the conservative perspective the important thing was the theology. But the conservative perspective is also the perspective of the modern SBC. No one is whitewashing the fact that the theology was safeguarded by personnel decisions. It's just a question of where the emphasis is. The event is known in Southern Baptist memory as the resurgence. A.J.A. (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about Southern Baptist Convention Conservative - Moderate Controversy"? Ltwin (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. It would be nice if there were a better word than controversy, but I'm not sure what that word would be. --B (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I use controversy because the SBC article calls it a controversy, and I really don't know what else to call it other then a split, dispute, conflict, or realignment. Any of those terms sound ok? Ltwin (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I have no preference between any of those words. I'm having trouble coming up with a single words to describe what takes a sentence. ;) --B (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be truthful without unnecessary derision. It was an earthquake of epic proportions. A split implies we each decided to go our separate ways rather than one group being ousted. Oust, purge, coup, takeover, subjugation are on my personal short list. Then, here are more suggestions of some words in combination:
  1. SBC ouster of moderate leadership
  2. SBC takeover by ultra-conservatives
  3. SBC moderates ousted by coup
  4. SBC purge of moderate leaders
  5. SBC ultra-conservatives purge moderates
  6. SBC ultra-conservatives' revolution
  7. SBC dominionist takeover [In Gen. the couple were told to "have dominion over the earth". I don't think fellow Baptists were intended.]
As User:B has correctly pointed out, the dichotomies are more-convervative and less-conservative. No one was liberal. That's why I opt for 'ultra-conservatives'. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But again, you're suggesting titles that tell the story you want to tell. As A.J.A. pointed out, we don't call the 2008 election the "takeover by ultra-liberals" or "purge of moderate leaders". The event was a leadership shift; your opinion was that it was a takeover. Those supportive of it would say it wasn't a takeover - it was the majority of people exercising their right to vote. Obama didn't take office as a part of an "ultra-liberals' revolution" - he was elected by a majority of the voters in this country. "Conservative shift", "Conservative leadership movement", "conservative movement", etc, are ways of phrasing it that do not make a value judgment on the appropriateness of the movement. Even "controversy" isn't a horrible term - I have a general distaste for how Wikipedia tends to have a "controversy" section in every article if anyone anywhere disagrees with it, but that's a general preference of mine, not a reason we have to avoid that term. "Ouster", "purge", "takeover", "subjugation", etc all make value judgments and that is not appropriate. --B (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources in the article, which nobody is disputing here on the talk page (and nobody seems to be attending much to as more than one of the links have gone dead, and another is being used to support original research on the part of an editor of this article), I see the following wording choices by sources that presumably are discussing the entire process rather than clearly just discussing part of it:

  • Conservative Resurgance - One source (The Truth in Crisis: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, vol. 6)
  • Reformation - Two sources, but one is an article reviewing the other, so barely more than one choice of wording (Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention 1978-2004)
  • Controversy - One source (The Root of the SBC Controversy), which clearly says the controversy was about theology, not politics, so to use a political term would be going against what this source says the issue was.

I see the following wording choices by sources that are clearly discussing only part of the entire period/process, and thus are not describing the entirety:

  • Controversy - Three sources, of which two (The Genesis Controversy and Continuity in Southern Baptist Chaos: A Eulogy for a Great Tradition and The Ralph Elliott Controversy: Competing Philosophies of Southern Baptist Seminary Education) are discussing the controversy of Elliot's book (one of these two by Elliot) and the third (Round Two, Volume One: the Broadman Commentary Controversy) is discussing another early incident.

Looking at this, I think "Reformation" is an excellent choice. It is supported as well by the sources in the article as anything else, does not suffer the political connotations that make Afaprof01's suggestions non-viable, and is to anyone with the faintest degree of familiarity with Christianity will have connotations echoing the Protestant Reformation, namely a messy process supported by some and opposed by others. "Resurgance" has similar connotations but feels poor as a preferred term of one side. "Controversy" appears to be primarily used to describe specific incidents, generally early in the process before the conservatives had gained control, and thus implying that in the end their control is not controversial, the control of the denomination by those indifferent to liberal trends was controversial, so I find it unsuitable for this article. GRBerry 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I could live with Reformation, but what kind of reformation would it be called, simply a Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Reformation or what? Ltwin (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is within the SBC, that phrase (spelled out) has to be part of the name. If I knew the association/denomination's history better, I might be better able to make suggestions. SBC Conservative Reformation could work. SBC 20th Century Reformation might work, depending on whether there is anything else in the 20th century that was called a reformation of the denomination/association. GRBerry 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you've pointed out, "Reformation" conjures up thoughts of the historic Protestant Reformation. The analogy breaks down quickly: in the Prot. Reformation, the "reformers" withdrew from the mother church. In the SBC whatever, the "reformers" wrested control from the mother denomination and kicked out the originals. I hope for a more correct title that paints a more accurate mental picture. In the SBC article, "Controversy" has been used by the SBC to describe a previous huge disagreement. Using their term again should not be pejorative. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Afa, in any Christian context "reformation" has ties too strong to be ignored. For that reason, I would prefer either "controversy" or "conservative resurgance" (slight preference for "conservative resurgance--it seems accurate, and is not pov). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can agree with that. "Reformation" probably does carry too strong a set of connotations, and it is also a term prefered by one side. Given that, "resurgence" is superior to "reformation". It also gives more information than "controversy" does. Maybe "Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention" would be a good title. (P.S., I checked the dictionary, the correct spelling is resurgence, I'm sorry for introducing a typo above.) GRBerry 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in earlier comments, "Conservative Resurgence" is strongly POV. It is the term self-picked by the architects of the Takeover.02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Help can someone please change that stupid name that has currently been applied to this article. This is rediculous. This is not and never has been a "war" by any stretch of the imagination. Ltwin (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAProf01

To get a fresh opinion, I solicited "outside" suggestions from professional editor and writer Katherine Yurica (yuricareport.com). Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC School of Law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today and as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report. Here is her reply to me:

I'm afraid that I agree with Wikipedia in that your title is too complex and unclear. You may be trying to be too specific. I would suggest that you broaden it to something like this:

  • The Historic Battle for the SBC or more properly:
  • The Historic Battle for the Southern Baptist Convention or perhaps
  • The Corporate Battle that Redefined the Southern Baptist Convention.
  • Or: The Southern Baptist Convention Under New Ownership: How a Church Was Won and Lost.
  • Or maybe this: The 20-Years War For the SBC.

Writers should always be trying to sell their work through their titles. Ask yourself "What would I really like to read about."

I find the topic to be a fascinating story and I see that you have uncovered a great deal of background material that further enhances the importance of your article. I would also suggest that you open with your second paragraph and eliminate the first. You get the reader's attention immediately as a reward!

Then I might point out later in the article, when you begin a description of the legal structure of the SBC, that all churches in America in general share a corporate identity, for they are all legalized by incorporation and they are required to set up Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws that control what they can or can't do. This legal structure is both the entity's strength and its weakness—as you have pointed out—the power to appoint committees is the power to control the SBC! People in general don't think of churches as legal corporate structures—and they should. I hope this helps you.

My best wishes,

Katherine Yurica
Editor

The problem with this "journalistic approach" is that Wikipedia is designed to be a reference encyclopedia, so "selling" the article with the title just isn't relevant. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly with Eugene. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking it over and it just seems that "Conservative Resurgence" is really the only way to go with this article's name. Sure, it's POV, sure, it's history written by the victors, but there's no real getting around it; that's the name most people use to describe what happened. Now, before Afaprof01 and others come thundering down on me consider this: unquestionably horrific historical events have often been labeled in positive ways by those responsible for them and, though we don't support the positive interpretation, we generally use those labels to refer to those events. China's "Great Leap Forward" comes immediately to mind. So if wikipedia can call the mass starvation of millions the "Great Leap Forward" for no other reason than because that's the event's generally recognized name, why can't we just call the SBC's change of leadership "The Conservative Resurgence" regardless of how we view the event itself? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, Eugene. Do you really think you might get thundered upon? :-) In all warm, courteous, well-intentioned, soft-spoken, sucrose intent, "resurgence" by definition implies that it was put back like it was. As someone in our group here has pointed out, there were some (I think a few) out-and-out liberals who were ejected justifiably. I keep hoping for something that doesn't imply revival, renewal, restoration. As for the China article, I think it's sad that the title got past our fellow editors. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but the answer seems rather straightforward: Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy
Of course, the article name without using small caps or capitalizing regular words; it'll look like this:
Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. Upon further reflection, I believe the term "conservative resurgence" is not so blatantly positive that it need be avoided. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAProf01

"Conservative resurgence" continues to have the same problems that have already been pointed out: 1) It is strongly POV since it is the exact name the Conservative group re-titled "Fundamentalist Takeover." 2) It leaves out those who were disenfranchised by the takeover. 3) Re-surge implies that there had been a prior surge, and that they are re-doing it. That wasn't the case. So it's an inaccurate term, and we don't want to perpetuate that error in terminology. 4) It is totally one-sided and gives no recognition of the combined years of intensely loyal high quality service of professionals, and many more years of the disenfranchised laypersons, who were ousted by the intentional takeover. Calling it was it was--takeover--is not pejorative. It's fact. It was a well documented conspiracy of the first order. It was well executed. My second choice is LtWin's nomination: Southern Baptist Convention Conservative - Moderate Controversy. It's the least POV of any other nominations. Someone suggested "controversy" has been overused. Maybe so, but I suggest we go with it until and unless we have a breakthrough that is so exciting we can't resist changing it again. Afaprof01 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Afaprof01 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in this hunt. I've never been associated with the SBC or Baptist theology.
I still prefer the name Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence.
  • 1) IMHO, the term "conservative resurgence" does not become unacceptable simply because its critics don't like it (i.e. who cares if it's "the exact name" the group chose?). The terms "conservative" and "fundamentalist" are not equally "loaded", IMHO.
    Has "conservative" ever been either a peacock term or a pejorative? Can the same be said about "fundamentalist"?
The phrase "conservative resurgence" was carefully chosen by the more rightist group to be their battle cry and became a de facto trademark. It therefore is a term very offensive to the moderates who became the displaced people since they see themselves also as conservatives, but a long way from fundamentalist. No problem with "conservative". BIG problem with "resurgence" or "resurgency."
  • 2) An article is more than its title. The article body can and should include those "disenfranchised by the takeover".
  • 3) Conservatism is ostensibly about "conserving" what one originally had or valued. It's arguable that the establishment of the SBC was the initial conservative "surge".
  • 4) Editors, we're discussing the title of an article, not an eternal flame commemorating all that is good and holy.
    I hate to rain on a parade, but Wikipedia is not a memorial.
Please let me reiterate my neutrality. Ahem. Terms such as "conspiracy" and "subjugation" are patently "loaded"; they should be used carefully. Other terms, such as "takeover", "purge", and "coup" are appropriate when used by outsiders, but less so by insiders. The terms "ultra-conservatives" and "rightists" seem unencyclopedic; let's avoid them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, please: "Conservative Takeover" is still the most accurate term short of "Fundamentalist Takeover" which won't work. Happens every day in industry and politics. It very aptly describes the entire process, hence: "S... B... C... Conservative Takeover." It was found offensive only when it read "Fundamentalist Takeover." "Controversy" as someone pointed out implies an ongoing struggle. This one's a done deal. The takeover was complete.

Straw poll

Any interest in a straw poll? First, please re-read WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name
Then, intersperse your VERY BRIEF signed comment (eg Never! or Barely acceptable. or Maybe. or Good. or 1st choice!) immediately below each.
Feel free to add a well-thought-out additional item on this list, at the end. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time-date stamps (that is, "--~~~~") can be parked under here:
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll 2

I've removed the unsupported names, and put those with more support toward the top.
Please rank, with your first choice being "1" and any you view as unacceptable being "X"; bold if you feel strongly. If you have comments, please leave them below the Time-date stamps below; thanks!

  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. –(A…Tam 1).
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative - moderate controversy. –(A…Tam 4).
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative takeover.. –(A…Tam 3).
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy. –(A…Tam 2).
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative controversy. –(A…Tam X).
  • Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Reformation. –(A…Tam X).

Time-date stamps (that is, "--~~~~") can be parked under here:
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The problem may not be with the name but the premise of the article

This is such a slippery topic and I think it is almost impossible to have an article about this and not have it driven by some groups agenda. I think that it would be better to do an article about the books that reference this matter. Someone earlier in this discussion said that you would not create and article called "The Republican Take Over" and I agree with their point. However in this case you don't even have a single event to reference. When I think of Baptists, I think conservative. It is like asking the question which burka is more conservative; the black one or the brown one? No matter wha the facts are, this article can only be subjective and thus POV. I am not trying to be rude, but I don't think finding the right title settles the issue with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off your assertion that all Baptists are conservative is misguided. There are many liberal Baptist groups, and in fact, a Baptist group that broke away from the SBC, the Alliance of Baptists, is open and affirming when it comes to homosexuality. So, it just wasn't conservatives bickering with more conservatives. This article is about a valid and an important part of the SBC history. Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did not intend to be rude and my comment about conservative was in order to acknowledge my clearly subjective perspective. I appreciate the additional background that you provided and I still stand by my contention that changing the title will not settle the issue with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this moved back yet?

I just now looked at the article history and realized this has been at the current title less than a month. Here I'd been assuming that the current name was of hoary antiquity, since usually this sort of exaggerated caution about changing anything is what we do when something has been around for a while. Why wasn't it summarily reverted? A.J.A. (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look farther. This has always been the title. It was only last month that an editor changed the title in favor of conservative resurgence. This provoked controversy and here we are. Also, I don't know what is going on but your comment only shows up in the edit history. Ltwin (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, its showing up now.Ltwin (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence&oldid=312805701"