On Sale for $10

THE GODMAKERS: A Legacy of the
Southern Baptist Convention?
by Bruce T. Gourley

Paperback, 208 Pages; Published by Providence House Publishers

Fundamentalists have radically changed the Southern
Baptist Convention since 1979.
Isn't it time you knew the real story behind
the takeover of the SBC?

Click here to order your copy of this hard-hitting book!

"What others have warned, whispered, and whisked away in unread sermons, Bruce Gourley is
now saying out loud in a more elaborate, public, and some would say, shrill  form ...
This is a book for all Southern Baptists, fundamentalist to liberal, sectarian to ecumenist,
Republican to Democrat ... " (From the Foreword by Walter Shurden, Baptist Historian)

A Response by the Author to the Founders Journal Review

Purchase Your Copy Today for only $10

  BaptistLife.Com       The Baptist Observer Home Page

"This book should be required reading for all Southern Baptists ..."
"I had to stop reading it in the evening, because it kept me awake at night ..."
"How could Southern Baptists let this happen?"
"I think he has hit the nail on the head."
"It's about time someone had the courage to tell it like it is."
"Disturbing."
"I knew things weren't right in the SBC, but I had no idea it was so bad ..."
"The book was so eye-opening, I passed my copy on to a friend and bought another copy."

back to the top

The Calvinistic Founders Journal printed a lengthy (8 pages) and unflattering review, written by Chad Brand, of  The GodMakers.  In the first place, it is odd that a Calvinistic Journal would bother to review a book by an unknown author which has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism, much less a review which consumed 1/4 of the entire Journal.  The only explanation is that the book is deemed to be a threat to the fundamentalist leadership, which includes a number of strict Calvinists.

The Founders Journal review, which you may read by clicking here, attacks my book on three basic fronts:  1) it claims that the book is lopsided in viewpoint, 2) that I utilize improper rhetorical language to describe fundamentalists, and 3) that I have not told the whole story.  I shall address each of these.

First, a clarification:  a battle of terms has been waging these past twenty years.  The fundamentalists who began taking over the SBC in 1979 soon came to see that the term "fundamentalist" was more negative than it was helpful, so they began seeking to claim the term "conservative" for themselves.  The truth is that "conservative" described virtually all Southern Baptists prior to 1979, which is certainly why the fundamentalists were so eager to be known as "conservatives" rather than "fundamentalists."  Now, in the late 1990s, the fundamentalists have succeeded in capturing the term "conservative" to describe themselves, and have settled on the term "moderate" to describe those who are less rigid than they are (they were not able to make the "liberal" label stick).  The plain truth, however, is that there is a tremendous difference between a "conservative" and a "fundamentalist," and no amount of label-stealing can change this truth.  The fundamentalists want us to believe they are "regular old conservatives," but this is nothing more than a deceitful ploy to try and disguise who they really are.

Thus, when Chad Brand of the Founders Journal refers to "conservatives," he is referring to the sect in Southern Baptist life that should appropriately be called "fundamentalists" (in the early days of the takeover, they were not ashamed of the fundamentalist label, but it appears that Brand and his colleagues now are ashamed of it).  I see no sense in trying to mislead folk, so I will simply refer to the fundamentalists as who they are.

1)  The Charge of a Lopsided Viewpoint:   Chad Brand, the author of the review, states that at least 272 of a total of 411 footnotes are from self-identified moderate-conservative sources.  Brand has also publicly stated that he considers Nancy Ammerman's Battle for the Bible to be a good volume about the Southern Baptist controversy.  It should be noted that Ammerman, in her aforementioned book, concludes through extensive research that only 11% (a conservative estimate) to 33% (a liberal estimate) of Southern Baptists identify themselves as fundamentalists and/or identify themselves with the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (note: when Ammerman's surveys were conducted, the fundamentalists had not yet decided that the term "fundamentalist" was a bad term).   On the other hand, anywhere from 67% to 89% percent identify themselves as non-fundamentalist and/or as not identifying with the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC. 

Therefore, if indeed 272 of the 411 footnotes in my book are from self-identified moderate-conservatives, the book is squarely in line with the makeup of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Perhaps Brand is actually complaining that the book sources are lopsided towards the actual makeup of the Southern Baptists, which is, of course, tilted away from the fundamentalists. 

As such, my book recognizes the reality of fundamentalist theology being a minority viewpoint in Southern Baptist life.  Even so, I quote from fundamentalist sources (both oral and written statements) more than their minority status dictates.

2)  The Charge That I Utilize Improper Rhetorical Language:  Brand seems to take particular glee in pointing out that I use descriptive terms to describe the actions of the fundamentalist leadership.   The facts are that the fundamentalist leadership have been the authors of a number of ungodly actions and attitudes during the course of the twenty-year controversy.  It is also true that there is only one way to describe ungodly actions and attitudes: that is, via descriptive words.   It is further true that the words which are employed to describe ungodly actions will necessarily be negative in nature, as ungodliness is of a negative nature, if we are to believe the Bible.

One could also add that fundamentalists have never, to this very day, hesitated to use very negative and inflammatory language to describe those who are even slightly less rigid than they in theology.  Thus, such an argument from Brand itself smacks of hypocrisy.

It should also be noted that on numerous occasions in my book, I do not hesitate to criticize moderate-conservatives regarding ungodly actions and attitudes that they have displayed.

3)  The Charge of Not Telling the Whole Story:   Finally, Brand, using a plethora of words, basically charges me with not telling the whole story.  Actually, he is correct on this point: the whole story will probably never be told, as some of the fundamentalists' dirty little secrets may well never see the light of day.  However, I am well aware he is insinuating that I am not accurately telling both sides of the story.  The reality, however, is that he is not interested in fairness, but rather he wants to make certain that the ongoing fundamentalist "spin" on the events of the past twenty years is told.  In truth, they have been "spinning" their story for twenty years, and have gotten attention far and wide.  It is time, in my humble opinion, that we get away from the "spin" and delve into the truth, painful though it may be.  That is the purpose of my book.

back to the top