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 Godmakers, published in 1996, was my first book (for more recent volumes, click here). The Calvinistic Founders Journal published a lengthy (8 pages) and unflattering review, written by Chad Brand, despite the fact that the Godmakers really did not address Calvinism. Perhaps the book was deemed to be a threat to the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which (then and even more so now) includes a number of strict Calvinists.

The Founders Journal review, which may be read by clicking here, attacks Godmakers on three basic fronts: 1) it claims that the book is lopsided in viewpoint, 2) that the author utilized improper rhetorical language to describe fundamentalists, and 3) that the volume did not tell the whole story of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. Following is a response to each charge.

First, a clarification:  Since the 1970s, a battle of terms has waged in Southern Baptist life. The fundamentalists who formally began assaulting the SBC in 1979 soon came to see that the term "fundamentalist" was more negative than it was helpful, so they eventually sought to claim the term "conservative" for themselves in an effort to obtain more credibility for their agenda. Historically, the "conservative" moniker (in the context of the Christian faith at large) described virtually all Southern Baptists prior to 1979, including Baptists whom fundamentalists considered as liberals or progressives. But by the mid-1990s, it was evident that fundamentalists were successful in co-opting "conservative" as a public self-descriptor.

Thus, when Chad Brand of the Founders Journal refers to "conservatives," he is referring to the new leadership in Southern Baptist life that is pretty much universally recognized as fundamentalist by religious historians and sociologists outside Baptist life.

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 1990 volume Battle for the Bible to be a good analysis of 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 an undesirable 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 representation of conservative-moderate voices is reflective of Ammerman's conclusions that Brand endorses.

2)  The Charge That I Utilize Improper Rhetorical Language:  Brand seems to take particular glee in pointing out the impropriety of the use of negative terms to describe the actions of the fundamentalist leadership. The facts (noted by many other analysts) are that fundamentalist leaders were masters of rhetoric and repeatedly and systematically utilized unethical, unChristlike words, actions, and attitudes during the course of the past three decades. 

3)  The Charge of Not Telling the Whole Story: Finally, Brand essentially charges me with not telling the whole story. Certainly, history is too fresh for the entire story to be told (although this is not the point that Brand had in mind). His point of contention, in reality, is that my analysis is not objective ... to which I reply, of course not. No telling of history is totally objective (intentions notwithstanding), and the purpose of this volume was to voice a view to balance the one-sided narrative that fundamentalists have put forth since the 1970s.

back to the top