BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Is it time for the CBF to go ahead and ?

I gather "pull the trigger" here is meant as a synonym of "raise the white flag". Interesting juxtaposition of imagery.

I'm intrigued why someone not involved in CBF always starts these threads about controversies affecting CBF

I said I wanted to hear from a friend who led a dialogue group at the conference before drawing any conclusions. She had very positive things to say about her small group experience ...

There were people on different sides of each issue--and more than one issue was dealt with at the conference, even though one has gotten the most discussion here.

There was a diversity of opinion on the issues within the group, but the participants were respectful of each other. There was no attempt to argue for or against a position, just an effort to share where each one was in their own thinking and a willingness to listen and understand without judging.

She also mentioned the very worshipful atmosphere that prevailed throughout the meeting. I suspect setting that sort of tone would go a long way toward defusing tensions and allowing people to feel safe in sharing.

One of the group members said she wished they could have that kind of discussion in her home church and others agreed. She felt it would be very helpful to deal with the various issues in such a positive way, and ask how their church should respond to them. (My own suspicion is that such would be very difficult in most churches without the context of a program that sets a tone where it could happen.)

I have a good friend who wrote liturgies and helped plan worship for the large sessions, though I didn't know that until yesterday. I haven't heard any mention of the fact that there were worship times, not just addresses without a context. He writes very well and is excellent with worship planning, so I'd like to hear more about the worship dimensions of the meeting.

One other observation: since several have commented on a lack of balance among the presenters, we really don't know who was asked but declined to be a part of the meeting. Perhaps there's more than we know to that issue.

From what I've heard from my friend's first-hand experience, I regret not being able to attend on a retiree's budget.

Neil

On the theme of this thread, I spoke with a friend who was there, and she described the conference as positive. She was not overly impressed with a couple of the speakers. She acknowledged that it was certainly not a Bible conference, but she said it is dealing with questions she faces almost weekly in pastoral counseling. The conference was about viewpoints being exchanged, not about pat answers being given. In her opinion, the content of the conference had little, if anything, to do with Colleen Burroughs' statements. She said that outside of one small group in which she participated, CBF policy was not mentioned. That was her take, and she said it was very helpful to be there for all the content of the conference.

I don't think the lack of balance was necessarily due to folks backing out or not accepting an invitation, etc.

I myself was surprised by a couple of the presentations based on what I knew or had assumed based on what I knew about the presenter. I expected a very "traditional" perspective and that's not what was given. There are not many in the CBF world who have aired their views in any real detail. So, to some extent, I don't think the organizers really fully and completely knew what message they would be getting prior to the conference.

The CBF is not going to "pull the trigger." That's William trying to drive up his hit count.

I don't see right now a path for any changes to be made. I just don't think it's going to happen. I expect one day the policy will change. It ought to. It's a bad policy. Even if you kept the prohibition on openly gay employees, the policy ought to be changed so as to not single out one group.

The CBF of Georgia wouldn't even let their collegiate ministry group have a stinking booth at an LGBT event last year on the campus of UGA. Perhaps if the there is a trigger to pull, it's the trigger not to put limitations on the activities of various ministries.

William's talk of "affirming" is pointless when some in CBF life are still unable to "welcome"

Ed,

I know you support the policy.

BUT, do you believe that one day in the future the policy will be changed? If not, why? If so, how long in the future till there is a change?

I'd be glad for some of my mod/lib friends to start these topics on CBF stuff and find them slow on the draw.

My hit count usually goes down when I do CBF stuff...yep...went down today.

I think that it is just a matter of time before the CBF does pull the trigger here. They may nuance it and not go full bore.

Pardon all the martial metaphors.

If I were a conservative CBFer with a traditional, Biblical, view on the subject, I would be wondering if the organization was getting to far afield for me to continue to identify with them.

Evergreen is definitely not primarily W&A or focused on the issue of homosexuality (ordination, marriage, membership, or otherwise). The focus is rather on creating a consensus-based system where all voices are heard and valued, and where there is no tyranny option for the majority.

I've heard some say that the pro-gay voices out to just join the Alliance. IMO, the Alliance isn't a good fit for many desiring change on this particular issue who grew up CBF, went to a CBF seminary and now serve a CBF church.

There are generally some real differences - theologically and socially/politically - between the average CBFer (who attends the General Assembly each year) and the average Alliance member (who attends their Convocation each year).

I've heard it said that an informal study of some sort was done in recent months to gauge the financial impact to the CBF of a change in policy toward homosexuality. Anyone else heard that?

Didn't proofread that. The first sentence should read OUGHT not OUT.

Yes, there is some overlap between Alliance and CBF. Those that I know personally involved with both were supporters of the Alliance (prior to the founding of CBF) or serve churches that supported the Alliance (prior to the CBF). So those individuals have simply decided to continue supporting both over the years.

I do not know individuals who went to a CBF-affiliated seminary/divinity school who are actively involved in the Alliance. I'm sure there are some but not many.

I think financial impact is relevant. It's certainly worth knowing where those individuals, churches and institutions who financially support the CBF stand with respect to the CBF's position/policy on a potentially explosive issue.

BDW, the name change is a morally neutral matter. Those advocating for the CBF to change their stance on homosexuality invariably do so on a moral basis.

I can think of some pretty good headlines if the CBF admits to counting dollars on this issue.
Let me know...when called, I try to respond and am always happy to help my mod/lib friends.

Yea, but looking at financial impact is not just about money, it's a way to measure general support.

I didn't say we determine morality on the basis of general support.

But we can look at numbers to determine where people stand on something, can we not?

We're not the SBC. We don't get motions from the floor and opportunities to adopt resolutions, etc. IMO our structure itself makes determining where CBFers stand on an issue rather difficult. So looking at numbers can be helpful.

Also, if a person doesn't give to the ministries of the CBF with their tithes, in what sense is that person a CBFer? CBF is not a church. It claims to be not a denomination too. I've never given a dollar to the Baptist Peace Fellowship. Consequently, I don't consider myself as a part of the Baptist Peace Fellowship. I support CBF missions though.