Southern Baptists are becoming increasingly more rigid in expressing their views these days. Historically, Baptists have generally been willing to allow for a reasonable degree of diversity on many theological issues. That's not true now.

Over the past twenty years, since the takeover by the fundamentalists, Southern Baptists have adopted a "one-view-fits-all" philosophy. Since the takeover, several issues have become hot one-view-fits-all topics. These one-fits-all issues have become tests of fellowship. Most of the one-fits-all issues fall on the lower end of the scale so far as important doctrines are concerned. Inerrancy, divorce in the clergy, alien immersion, and interpretation of miracles are some of the hot issues being discussed among Southern Baptists these days.

Prior to 1979, most of these issues weren't crucial in the minds of Southern Baptists. It is true there have always been pockets of Southern Baptists who claimed the one-view-fits-all philosophy for all Southern Baptists. However, since the takeover, the SBC leadership has sought to impose their "one-view" on virtually all Southern Baptists. The fundamentalists have excluded and withdrawn fellowship from untold scores of Southern Baptists who refused to agree with the one-view philosophy.

Perhaps the hottest of the one-view-fits-all issues is inerrancy. The fundamentalists are claiming that inerrancy, in the strictest definition of that word, should be the one view. Never mind that those who choose to define the Bible as being infallible but not inerrant still believe the Bible is inspired by God and has truth without mixture of error. The fundamentalists claim that their view on inspiration is the only view which may be held by Southern Baptists and remain in full fellowship with the SBC. Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, and W. A. Criswell are the chief architects not only of the takeover of the SBC, but are also the ones who popularized the one-view-fits-all mentality for Southern Baptists.

A major reason for the firings and the multitudes of pressured terminations of seminary presidents and professors relates directly back to the one-view-fits-all mentality. The prime reason for the success of the takeover was that the fundamentalists managed to force their will by replacing all members of boards and agencies with rubber-stamp one-view-fits-all lackeys. And of course the one-view which is suppose to fit all is the view of the fundamentalist leadership. That was the scheme of the grand design perpetrated by Pressler, Patterson and Criswell.

In truth, the one-view-fits-all philosophy exposes the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist leaders. Southern Baptists have never held a one-view-fits-all in soteriology or eschatology. There has always been a diversity of views on soteriology. From the very beginning, Baptists have agreed to disagree in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. From the beginning there was the General Baptist view of a general atonement and the Particular Baptist view on soteriology. And there will always be this tension. So one- view doesn't fit all Baptists here. The same is true concerning eschatology. Through the years, Southern Baptists have held various Postmillennial, Premillennial, and Amillennial views of eschatology. There has never been a one-view-fits-all on these doctrines. By and large, neither of these issues have become tests of fellowship for Southern Baptists.

The hypocrisy of the fundamentalists is that they now are demanding a one-view-fits-all on the inerrancy issue. It has become a major test of fellowship among Southern Baptists. And this was not historically the case. It was not until the late 1970's that inerrancy became a major issue. These days Southern Baptists are judged on this issue above almost every other issue. Untold numbers of good and godly Southern Baptists have been disfellowshiped on this issue alone. These days one is considered to be a "good" Southern Baptist so long as he agrees with the fundamentalist view of this doctrine. Those who don't hold the one-view of the fundamentalists are driven from or excluded from fellowship. In essence it's okay to hold diverging views on eschatology and soteriology, but it's anathema for anyone to hold a view which diverges an iota from the fundamentalist "one-view" of inerrancy. Southern Baptists who disagree with the fundamentalist one-view on inerrancy are ridiculously charged as not believing the Bible.

One-view-fits-all? Should Southern Baptists hold a one-view-fits-all philosophy on inerrancy? I am one Southern Baptist who will give a resounding no for an answer. I think it's sheer hypocrisy for Southern Baptists to have a diversity of views on eschatology and soteriology while holding a one-view-fits-all philosophy on inerrancy. The one-view-fits-all crowd is no better than the Pharisees. In fact, it is the modern day equivalent to the Pharisees.

March, 2001