By My Own Reckoning by Cecil Sherman: A Brief Review by Peter Lumpkins

    By My Own Reckoning. By Cecil Sherman. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2008. 280 pages. Hardcover, $24.00. Recently, I posted briefly concerning a review by Paige Patterson on this release.  That, however, was more a summary of attention others were giving to his work, most notably Dr. Patterson's.  Below are a few of my own thoughts since reading Dr. Sherman's book.   

Please Note:  Thanks to Steve Heartsill who was kind enough to post this on the comment thread, we post the following and call on everyone to pray for Dr. Sherman and his family:

"We received word today that Dr. Cecil Sherman, founding coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, has been diagnosed with acute leukemia. He is in M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, for tests and possible treatment options. His wife, Dot, continues to be in failing health in Richmond. Please join me in prayer for Cecil and Dot as well as their daughter Eugenia Brown during this difficult time."

Even more burdensome, Dorothy Sherman, Dr. Sherman's wife for 55 years, went home to her Lord, admittedly a happy time for her but a hard time for the family.

By My Own Reckoning (hereafter, Reckoning) may be safely added to the Amazon wish list of those who either were a part of the Conservative Resurgence beginning in 1979 or desire to understand it from the inside out.  That Sherman was a major figure in the struggle for the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention no one seriously doubts.  Smyth & Helwys Publishing deserves our gratitude for pursuing this project.

Reckoning is autobiographical and thus invites us to climb onto Sherman's family tree for a deeper look at his roots (chapter one).  There is a yard-long string of Baptist preachers in Sherman's family, so it comes as no shock Sherman ended as one.  Sherman's dad was a blue-collar worker.  Cecil himself grew up in Ft. Worth, Texas when "life was uncomplicated" with "three institutions that shaped [him].  They were family, church, and school" (p.15).  These three institutions made a profound impact on Sherman and constitute the fabric that make up life's mosaic for him.  One could say about Reckoning that the entire monograph is an extended memoir of the big three.

For Conservative Resurgence supporters such as myself, the core of interest I anticipated pertained to Sherman's recollection of the "Wars Years" in the SBC and Reckoning's contribution does not disappoint.  I obviously possess a different take on the unfolding of those years, what they meant to the SBC's future, and the estimation of the Resurgence leaders themselves.  Nonetheless, Sherman not only has a right to be heard but needs to be heard.  Truth needs its adversary to both sharpen and focus the proper energy to survive.

Rather than focus the remainder of this brief review on the structure of the book, I'd like to offer some strengths Reckoning possesses. Subsequently, I'll also offer what seems to me to be glaring weaknesses. 

As for some Strengths of Reckoning:

• Sherman appears to have made peace with the past.  Contrary to some recent hoopla over words Sherman spoke, the book itself gives the impression that Sherman accepts the fact that the SBC could not continue as it was.  There was just too much of a gap between the Conservatives ("Fundamentalists" to Sherman) and Moderate-Liberals ("Moderates" to Sherman). The divide was painful but necessary

• Open concession that the problem in the SBC was theologically driven in nature.  For years, the mantra Moderates continued to chant was "It's the power, stupid!"  Sherman puts an end to that nonsense.  Writing of the Peace Committee, he stated: "So the first conclusion reached by our committee was this:  our controversy has been caused by theology.  A second, and derivative, problem is politics" (p.187)

• The Doctrine of Scripture stood first and foremost as the concern of grassroots Conservatives.  Again, Sherman writes:  "Several theological issues surfaced [in Peace Committee discussions], but Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture were always foremost" (Ibid). Moderate-Liberals definitively could not adhere to inerrancy.  With deep sincerity, Sherman writes:  "The reason I didn't use the term "inerrancy" to describe the Bible was because of the honest, reverent teachers who taught me better...I didn't think "inerrancy" was an honest word to describe the Bible.  It is a slippery word. The less you know about the Bible, the easier it is to say the Bible is inerrant; the more you know about the Bible, the harder it is to use the word.  It was not that we were "soft on the Bible."  It was a case of care, academic precision, and honesty" (pp. 137-138). Again, Reckoning states Sherman's very honest confession about Scripture's inspiration:  "I believe the Bible is God-inspired. In all things related to the first purpose of the Bible (to bring wayward humankind back to God), the Bible is without error.  But when the Bible speaks of science and historical detail, the Bible has some errors. Moderates do not believe the Bible is full of errors, but there are errors.  Inerrantists do not admit this.  Moderates do because it is the truth" (pp.139-140)

• Sherman noted more than once that Reckoning was the account of one man and represented his view alone. In his own words, "No one who is informed on the subject of the SBC controversy is objective...I have a point of view.  That does not give me license to twist truth or bend facts, but from the beginning I opposed Fundamentalism.  I thought it was wrong" (p.131).  Knowing one's own view is subject to correction and realizing the complications bias could present stand as requisite to any work that advertises to others that one be taken seriously. Sherman passes with high marks

• Reckoning reveals much about the rich personal life and passionate ministry Sherman has been privileged to experience. His difficulties at his churches--especially the zoo-like atmosphere he survived at First Baptist Church, Asheville, North Carolina over racial issues--and the conversations with denominational leaders during the resurgence years are a goldmine of inspiration on the one hand and sad commentary on the other. The lowest point in Sherman's recorded memoirs, from my standpoint, came not from Sherman being squashed by his Conservative Resurgence adversaries. Rather, it escaped the lips of one of his own tribe.  After the Glorieta Statement--a composite statement by the six seminary presidents concerning the theological nature of the conflict--went public in October, 1986, Sherman questioned then president of Southwestern Baptist Theological President, Russell Dilday, about the statement's possible impact.  In response, Dilday allegedly said:  "Cecil, you are more trouble to us than those people are" (p.207).  Stunning Sherman severely, it led to his resignation of the Peace Committee.  This statement reveals, at least for me, an out-of-control snobbery existing at the highest levels of SBC life.  If one of their own could be talked down to as a sniveling child, what do you suppose was their attitude to the unlearned "Fundamentalists"?

As for some Weaknesses of Reckoning:

• The structure of the book is a bit awkward at times, making for a garbled impression. Even Sherman anticipates the possible confusion his chronology (or lack of) could create (p.5).  For my part, a better flow would be to keep a consistent chronology rather than "part 1" and "part 2" of the same period

• The differences between "Fundamentalists and Moderates" Sherman describes are overly simplistic at best (pp.138-147).  Listing six main differences between the two groups, Sherman gives the impression that "Fundamentalists" are theologically impotent and virtually unstudied.  For example, Sherman lists as the first difference the obvious variance each group has in words to describe the Bible's inspiration (p.138).  Unfortunately, he appears to assume inerrancy is a recent creation by "Fundamentalists" without the least acknowledgment of the doctrine of inerrancy's rich history, and that among Baptist believers. In addition, I recall no discussion as to precisely why Inerrancy advocates were dubbed "Fundamentalists" when, in fact, Inerrancy proper not only predated the Fundamentalist movement several centuries, but also possessed a wide variety of adherents within broader evangelicalism.  In other words, Inerrancy is not a Baptist issue anymore than abortion is a Catholic issue.  A more naive difference Sherman makes between "Fundamentalists" and Moderates is well stated in Sherman's own words:  "Moderates believe pastors are servants of the church; Fundamentalists believe the pastor should be "the ruler of the church" (1Timothy 5:17)" (p.142).  For me, to even remotely suggest that Conservatives view pastors "rulers over" the church while Moderate-Liberals view pastors as "servants to" the church is such blatant stereotyping that I hardly think it needs rebuttal.  Speaking as one "fundamentalist" I do not see Paul (1 Timothy 5:17) as enemy to Jesus (Luke 22: 24-27).  Indeed, the very inerrancy I embrace which Sherman definitively rejects prohibits a hermeneutic that leads to such nonsense.  However, a hermeneutic that dislodges the epistemological harmony between one passage and another seems a likely candidate resulting from a biblical errors brand of inspiration--the view I reject but Sherman happily receives

• Another weakness is Sherman's rather plain way of making sure the "Fundamentalists" look a bit backward and theologically unsophisticated. In his candid descriptions of some of the meetings of the Peace Committee, top Conservative Resurgence leaders were described as not only uninformed theologically but also dishonest.  Both Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines are mentioned by name and neither is left with a good impression.  In describing the "Fundamentalist Mind", he noted that "Fundamentalism emerged in opposition to modern thought systems.  The Fundamentalist mind is pre-Enlightenment" (p.186).  What does that mean?  For Sherman, it meant at minimum that "One member of the committee said that he believed God made the world in six twenty-four-hour days.  To make a statement like that means this person has rejected a sizable body of science" (Ibid).  Yet, there is a "sizable body of science" that completely rejects the God-Hypothesis of Creation period.  Would Dr. Sherman accept such a "sizable body of science" that denies creation?  If not, how is he not also "pre-Enlightenment" in his view?

• Sherman criticizes "Fundamentalists" for being disingenuous. Sherman notes a time when he and Daniel Vestal had a moment of revelation:  "[Vestal] said, 'Cecil, Adrian didn't tell the truth in that meeting this morning did he?'  I said, 'Daniel, I don't believe he did'" (p.193).  On the other hand, Sherman surprisingly makes clear he himself was disingenuous as well, leaking the conversations and procedures to the Moderate-Liberal leaders when the Peace Committee process was supposed to be completely confidential (p.191).  One can appreciate his candor in confessing up to his own dishonesty, but to hammer the other side because they allegedly were dishonest is itself questionable.  Thus, Sherman's conclusion about the two groups on the Peace Committee is moot: "Never was the ethic of the two groups more in stark contrast than that morning" (p.192).  So Sherman's ethic of dishonesty was clearly more laudable than his adversaries' alleged dishonesty?
  

• Two miscellaneous items worthy of note. First, Sherman complains that Moderates like himself were wrongly characterized as not believing the Bible:  "Often the glib phrase, 'You don't believe the Bible' slipped into the conversation.  It is irritating to hear yourself accused of 'not believing the Bible' when you've spent your life trying to interpret the Bible rightly.  But the charges never stopped" (p. 188).  Yet, Sherman openly concedes that the Bible possesses errors (pp.137-140). Conservatives never once charged that Moderate-Liberals count the entire Bible as erroneous.  Not even the most hardened skeptic would argue such. Rather, the assertion's intent was/is  "You don't believe [all] the Bible", which obviously needs no defense because Sherman concedes such.  Why he would complain about an accurate charge is curious. Secondly, no index exists for Reckoning.  Evidently, autobiographical works do not employ an index as standard.  I picked up some works on my shelves just to check and it was about 50/50.  However, with so many personalities and events in this work, it would have benefited the reader had such a tool been offered.

My view is that Reckoning should be read by every Southern Baptist who has interest about our most recent history and especially the theological struggles we've encountered (you may click on Sherman's book to the right and it will take you directly to the page to order your copy immediately). As a Conservative Resurgence advocate looking for a respectable volume from "the other side", do not let Reckoning pass.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[David R. Brumbelow]

Impressive book review. As one who was very interested and involved in the Conservative Resurgence, I can tell you know your subject well. You bring out points and nuances that were and are very important to properly understanding the differences between conservatives and moderate/liberals.
Again, I compliment Dr. Sherman on being honest about what so many moderates and liberals denied. That there really was a doctrinal difference in the SBC. That there really were liberals and their supporters gaining ascendancy in the convention. The moderate denials ring hollow against the testimony of the Peace Committee and now the Reckoning of Sherman.
Alas, I still await my ordered copy of Reckoning.
David R. Brumbelow

[Byron]

Good book review (from one who hasn't read it himself yet). One thing, though, is found in the section "Sherman criticizes 'Fundamentalists' for being disingenuous." You explain Sherman's error but give none of his reasons or any background context for his accusation. I would be interested in reading those, even though my mind is already made up (i.e., that you're right) on the issue.

You can actually have fun connecting the dots in the extremely liberal mindset: from having and actually using the Bible in worship services, to the audacity of really believing in it, to being backward and ignorant. They're all logically connected, and it seems to me that even moderates have leanings in that simplistic direction. The best way I have found for dealing with moderates so far, is to listen quietly and patiently while they explain that the grass is orange and the sky is purple, then thank them for the information, shake their hands, and wish them a nice life as you go on your way. I am really not sure what else to do.

[Byron]

Hello, Peter. Have you been busy?

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

My brother. I wish I had words to express it. My schedule is wildfire right now. I have writers' cramp to be sure.

Feast on SelahV for a day or two and I'll post early next week. Grace, my brother.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byron]

Peter, I wish you all the best as you seek to serve the Lord. Sorry for getting impatient! :) But my schedule is pretty much the polar opposite of yours. In another month's time, I'll be able to tell you which brand of paint peels the fastest off the wall in each of several different price and feature classes (and provide live statistical data from time lapse recordings upon request). In other words, I have no life (and would not know what to do with it if I found one).