CONFLICTING DEVELOPMENTS

Doc

In the winter of 1966 there was a conflict brewing between the Doc and Don Nelson at 4^th Baptist. Nelson, my primary mentor and influence on me at the time, was a different breed of pastoral staff member. He and the Doc had been very close, but Don’s penchant for dramatic escapades and occasional conflicts with parents tested the tranquility of the church on several occasions.

In the midst of this time Doc or the leaders of the church – or both – gave Nelson time to sort out his future ministry options. Subsequently, Nelson received a call from Littleton, Colorado, to become pastor of the Caley Ave. Baptist Church in the suburban Denver area. During the four months that all of this was transpiring I was called upon to step in as a substitute for Nelson in leading the very large youth program that Don had built over nine years of ministry. That wasn’t a problem to me because I had already been serving as Nelson’s chief lieutenant anyway. Still it was a dicey position for a 24 year old to occupy.

However, that winter, I was contacted by Bud Weniger, at that time a young pastor in a growing church in Normal, Illinois, who was seeking a youth pastor. In the middle of this troubled time, one of the seminary professors approached me to say that I should hold my options open because I was probably going to be asked to be the next youth pastor at 4^th Baptist. I knew that I did not want to be in the midst of an unsettled church conflict, or to follow the man who was a legendary youth pastor. The Lord rescued me when I received a call from the Calvary Baptist Church in Normal, Illinois about two weeks before the 4^th Baptist position became definitely open.

Doc knew the background and circumstances of the church in Illinois. Calvary was a relatively new church at the time that resulted from one of those notorious court cases where he, and my dad, had testified at ten years previously. Doc evidently wasn’t sure that church was established enough to handle the financial responsibility of an assistant pastor. But it was, and God was exceedingly faithful and we had four fruitful years of ministry at Calvary.

Many church members and listeners bought those radios in the opening months of the station’s history. I became the first newscaster for the 5:00 o’clock news show and shared that time-slot with Gary Gillmore, my fellow church janitor and seminary classmate. Gary read the sports and I read the news and weather. We would drop our mops at about 4:45 and run to the AP teletype machine and rip our copy just in time for the 5:00 hour.

I also remember that Myron Cedarholm had been announced as the new president of Pillsbury just a few weeks before our wedding. Of course, Uncle Myron and Aunt Thelma were at our wedding – they went to the wedding of every young person they influenced; that was just the way it was. At the reception that night I remember talking to him about his new appointment, and I also remember realizing he had a whirlwind schedule of preaching, traveling and moving ahead of him before the fall term began. I had no idea what the years in the immediate future would bring.

However, it was during those years in Normal that my extended world, the bigger world of family, friendships and ministry connections, went from being predictable and tranquil to being unpredictable and topsy-turvy. It all was wrapped up in the conflict that came to the forefront due to the leadership and personalities of these two indomitable men.

Cedar

In the spring of 1967 and 1968 Bud Weniger and I made the trek to the Pillsbury campus during college days activities with a group of our church young people. I remember on both occasions we stayed at the Cedarholm’s residence on campus. The large stately home on the northwest corner of the campus had been obtained by the college as the President’s home. Little did I realize that almost 30 years later Connie and I would occupy that home for one year during my short-lived presidency at Pillsbury. But that is another story.

The mid 1960s was a time of tumult and change in what had been the Conservative Baptist Movement. It was at this time that Myron Cedarholm left the position of General Director of the CBA to become the president of Pillsbury. His transition from leadership of the CBA also marked a significant step in the shift among many of the Central Regional CBA churches toward an independency from the association, and an independent spirit in general. Some churches coalesced around the new World Conservative Baptist Mission, and others moved toward the New Testament Association (NTA). Others simply became markedly independent, although most continued relationships with the various state associations that had been part of the CBA. Some pastors found their main fellowship in the annual meeting of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which had been the Conservative Baptist Fellowship of the late 40s and 50s.

In my opinion, all of this change gave rise to different views of leadership strategy and organizational structure within this increasingly independent milieu of the emerging and changing movement. Doc and Cedar were at the center of these developments. Doc was the leading proponent for the associational philosophy or emphasis of the NTA. Cedar ultimately became more of a rallying point for the more independent spirit developing among many of the churches. Again, in my opinion, these two different strains of thought, or emphasis, would play into the change that would come in the late 60s and into the 1970s.

Dr. Cedarholm inherited the Bob Jones style discipline and demerit approach that Dr. Parker had instituted at Pillsbury. It should be noted that it was Dr. Parker’s system, and not just a Bob Jones concept, because he had been part of the administration at Bob Jones that had structured the disciplinary program. I must say that when I was a student at Pillsbury I was not particularly in love with the discipline system. However, even through my immature thinking at the time I could grasp and appreciate that the goal of the system was to build character. Still, my main thought pattern was thus: I have so many of demerits to spend and so I must spend them wisely.

My experience was that students who were generally in agreement with the school’s spiritual purpose were also students who could submit to the discipline system. Students definitely chaffed who were determined to break the rules and live outside of rules of the college. But there always could be the human aspect involved in administering the rules and confronting potential rule breakers.

I’m not sure how well Cedar understood the discipline system before he became president. I know, from a conversation with Dr. Parker in 1966, that the two men had very little time together during the transition period, but I know that Cedar was committed to backing the disciplinary committee that Dr. Parker had left in place. Thus it was in 1968 a conflict came to head over an action taken by the discipline committee, and backed by Dr. Cedarholm. I really don’t know any of the specifics about the disciplinary action that caused the crisis that followed. I only know about what I saw and heard about the fallout from the resulting clash.

At the time of the split I believe the folks in Minnesota, and the churches that remained supportive of Doc, tended to interpret the conflict as being about discipline and board governance.  Pillsbury proponents declared and defended the idea that it was a board run school, as opposed to being a president run school. This was especially significant because the Pillsbury board was elected from the membership of the association of churches, and therefore the college was under the control of the MBA.

Another issue that surfaced early, but faded in following years, was the charge that Cedar was a poor administrator. I believe that idea came from a self deprecating remark Cedar made at the time of his investiture, where he was comparing himself to Monroe Parker. That kind of comment and expression was very much in keeping with the Cedar that I knew my whole life. He was always promoting someone else. As the years rolled on the success of Maranatha seemed to dim the force of that charge.

The issue for these folks was a desire to have a school that would be responsive to the churches and not be solely under the patronage of the Minnesota Baptist Association (MBA). Whether the discipline issue was a big item to them I don’t know, although I would imagine most of those folks would be supportive of the philosophy of Monroe Parker and Myron Cedarholm – because they knew both of those men intimately. They did not know Doc that well. They knew him by reputation, but Doc had not been in their churches and homes like Cedar and Dr. Parker.