Candle in Search of Darkness

[Dave Roberts]

Allen Bean has offered an interestng and challenging perspective on CBF after the General Assembly. I think his thoughts deserve consideration and a response from those of us with a CBF orientation. How does his voice fit with these days of redefinition?

http://abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/7558-cbf-a-candle-in-search-of-darkness#.T-oKseJYtZ0

[William Thornton]

Pardon the intrusion but I just read the piece. Here's a quote:

As the CBF and the SBC have drifted apart, both groups have redefined themselves. The SBC has embraced the old “heaven and hell” Christianity so characteristic of frontier revivalism. The evangelistic mission of the SBC may have been interpreted in softer terms by moderate SBC leaders between 1950 and 1975, but the kinder, gentler evangelism had been thoroughly eradicated by 1990. Since then, preachers who believe in a literal hell, a real heaven and a sure-’nuff Satan have had the stage to themselves.

If Vestal’s final sermon on the glory of God is anything to go by, the CBF loves the light but would rather not talk about the darkness. Using every rhetorical tool in the preacher’s tool kit, Vestal tried to get his audience fired up about the glory of God. He was only partially successful.

The CBF has always been unsure about the darkness. Do they believe in a real Satan and a real hell? Some may and some may not; but it hardly matters since hardly anyone affiliated with the group is comfortable with these dark concepts.

The speaker is no SBCer, not a flaming fundie...

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Pardon the intrusion but I just read the piece. Here's a quote:

As the CBF and the SBC have drifted apart, both groups have redefined themselves. The SBC has embraced the old “heaven and hell” Christianity so characteristic of frontier revivalism. The evangelistic mission of the SBC may have been interpreted in softer terms by moderate SBC leaders between 1950 and 1975, but the kinder, gentler evangelism had been thoroughly eradicated by 1990. Since then, preachers who believe in a literal hell, a real heaven and a sure-’nuff Satan have had the stage to themselves.

If Vestal’s final sermon on the glory of God is anything to go by, the CBF loves the light but would rather not talk about the darkness. Using every rhetorical tool in the preacher’s tool kit, Vestal tried to get his audience fired up about the glory of God. He was only partially successful.

The CBF has always been unsure about the darkness. Do they believe in a real Satan and a real hell? Some may and some may not; but it hardly matters since hardly anyone affiliated with the group is comfortable with these dark concepts.

The speaker is no SBCer, not a flaming fundie...

I kind of thing that quoting this section alone leaves readers with a false impression about how Bean (whose daughter teaches at Baylor and I'm friends with) defines "hell" and "darkness"

For Bean, hell is extreme poverty. Hell is mass incarceration. Hell is here in many places on earth. We need to confront this darkness and save others from this hell through a more serious focus, if not radical focus, on social justice.

Bean has an incredibly fascinating story. Google Friends of Justice, his organization and read his story. He's lived out a very radical commitment fighting injustices.

I like Bean's message. Although, I do disagree with some of his characterizations. He's not an insider to CBF life. I don't particularly see the value in quoting Daniel Vestal circa 1989 and then asking whether his 1989 thinking resonates with younger CBFers in 2012.

I think anyone who has been involved in CBF for a long time will attest that Daniel Vestal 1989 is not Daniel Vestal 2012. By his own admission, he has done a great deal of evolving over the years.

Also, can we really make a judgment about the CBF and our 20-year history based on the content of one particular sermon - this year's sermon - by Vestal? I've heard Vestal speak passionately, calling CBFers to be the "presence of Christ" and confront social injustices. His sermon in Fort Worth was not one of those kind of sermons. That's perfectly fine. But because it wasn't that kind of sermon, I don't think its fair to make any sweeping conclusions.

What I heard was a good sermon, although I had to leave early because my 8 month old started yapping and giggling.

I do think that Bean is correct about the lack of an antagonist. I wish CBF could unite behind 1-3 social issues and confront those, speaking boldly. For example, the BGCT had a big push a few years back to address food insecurity here in Texas. Hunger was their emphasis. The Christian Life Commission has focused on predatory lending and environmental issues. I like the programmatic emphasis on one or two issues.

Robert Parham has done his part, focusing on the environment then immigration, etc. CBF itself hasn't really had a sustained focus on social injustices, the "darkness" in society. We adopted the UN Millennium Development Goals back in like 2006-2007. Those goals dealt with extreme poverty, hunger, environment. But they were broad goals, not a narrow focus. That effort didn't really take off and CBF hasn't tried anything like it again.

The CBF has always been unsure about the darkness. Do they believe in a real Satan and a real hell? Some may and some may not; but it hardly matters since hardly anyone affiliated with the group is comfortable with these dark concepts.

I want to see the CBF talk about The New Jim Crow and Juan Crow. Mass incarceration and immigration are certainly issues that individuals and churches alike can address in a variety of ways. That's the darkness that Bean is talking about.

Right now, we're in a moment of transition. I think we need a new Coordinator sooner than later. We don't even have a #2 now. We adopted the Task Force Report but I don't think anyone really knows how that is going to play out. The heart of the recommendations involve agreements with the state CBFs - agreements which have not been negotiated yet.

I talked to many people in Fort Worth from a bunch of Wake Divinity students all the way to top leaders. Those conversations revealed that I along with many others are not certain as to the future role of the CBF-Atlanta once these recommendations are implemented and the agreements negotiated. I wonder if in the future we'll really need all the staff in Atlanta or if a decentralization is in order?

Two of the obvious candidates to succeed Vestal are Larry Hovis (NC) and Suzii Paynter (TX). After hearing the long explanations about these new changes, I'm not sure why the new Coordinator would even need to be located in Atlanta.

I'd like to see the CBF aggressively begin to pursue confronting "darkness" as Allan Bean suggests. There's nothing stopping our churches from doing so right now and other organizations from doing the same if they aren't already. But during this time of transition, the CBF is not in a position to do that until we get a new leader with a vision.

It is my hope that we can keep the waters calm and the CBF intact and avoid controversy for a time. But it seems some of my Texas brethren (including Texans who are not overly involved in CBF) are talking a little louder, trying to divide CBF along the Mississippi River. I don't think this is helpful at all.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Here is a comment from Jim Smith over at ABP. I believe Smith is head of the CBF Foundation, correct me if I'm wrong? I know he's with CBF.

The writer's comments: "The younger generation of CBF people hunger and thirst for deep theological conversation about things like sex, the ecological crisis, justice, crime and punishment, immigration and all the other broken pieces of America," describe most CBF friends...not just the younger generation. Those engaged in mission know all about the darkness and are motivated to join in the effort to bring light.

That's a nice way of saying that he disagrees with Bean's characterization of CBFers. I agree although I also like the overall message.

[Timothy Bonney]

A faith that is only about getting "divine fire insurance" isn't much of a faith.

[Ed Pettibone]

Here is a comment from Jim Smith over at ABP. I believe Smith is head of the CBF Foundation, correct me if I'm wrong? I know he's with CBF.

The writer's comments: "The younger generation of CBF people hunger and thirst for deep theological conversation about things like sex, the ecological crisis, justice, crime and punishment, immigration and all the other broken pieces of America," describe most CBF friends...not just the younger generation. Those engaged in mission know all about the darkness and are motivated to join in the effort to bring light.

That's a nice way of saying that he disagrees with Bean's characterization of CBFers. I agree although I also like the overall message.

Ed; Aaron what do you see in Bean's "over all message" that may outweigh his errant characterization of CBFers?

I am nor sure how to read him because I do not know much about him even though he was a Ph.D. student at Southern when I went back in 1990. I am impressed with what I have read of the work done by his Friends of Justice organization. The ABP story references his ABC Ordination and I would like to see something of his ABC experience. What did he do between getting his M.Div at SBTS in 1978 and his return for Ph.D. work in 89? Being from Canada how did he end up in Texas? To come from virtual obscurity to offer a negative critique of Dan Vestal's final speech as CBF Coordinator and CBF in general causes me to question his motivation.

The essence of Dan's Address is summed up in his statement that "CBF exist as a fellowship to serve and extend the life of churches—not to ask churches to extend our life."

And Tim B. who has indicated that faith is all about fire insurance? Not Dan Vestal or any one else in CBF that I have heard.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed, what I was trying to say is that a lot of evangelical faith is pushed as being about divine fire insurance. It often more about staying out of hell than it is about knowing a loving God. That's what I got as a kid out of Baptist revival services. Turn or burn, cry or fry, shake or bake.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed, what I was trying to say is that a lot of evangelical faith is pushed as being about divine fire insurance. It often more about staying out of hell than it is about knowing a loving God. That's what I got as a kid out of Baptist revival services. Turn or burn, cry or fry, shake or bake.

But Tim, Beal was addressing CBF not, the SBC of your Youth. Which by the way as I have said before seems to have been quite different from my 48 years SBC experience as an adult. Of course as an Adult I had a choice of churches.

[Dave Roberts]

I do think that Bean is correct about the lack of an antagonist. I wish CBF could unite behind 1-3 social issues and confront those, speaking boldly. For example, the BGCT had a big push a few years back to address food insecurity here in Texas. Hunger was their emphasis. The Christian Life Commission has focused on predatory lending and environmental issues. I like the programmatic emphasis on one or two issues.

Robert Parham has done his part, focusing on the environment then immigration, etc. CBF itself hasn't really had a sustained focus on social injustices, the "darkness" in society. We adopted the UN Millennium Development Goals back in like 2006-2007. Those goals dealt with extreme poverty, hunger, environment. But they were broad goals, not a narrow focus. That effort didn't really take off and CBF hasn't tried anything like it again.

I want to see the CBF talk about The New Jim Crow and Juan Crow. Mass incarceration and immigration are certainly issues that individuals and churches alike can address in a variety of ways. That's the darkness that Bean is talking about.

Right now, we're in a moment of transition. I think we need a new Coordinator sooner than later. We don't even have a #2 now. We adopted the Task Force Report but I don't think anyone really knows how that is going to play out. The heart of the recommendations involve agreements with the state CBFs - agreements which have not been negotiated yet.

I talked to many people in Fort Worth from a bunch of Wake Divinity students all the way to top leaders. Those conversations revealed that I along with many others are not certain as to the future role of the CBF-Atlanta once these recommendations are implemented and the agreements negotiated. I wonder if in the future we'll really need all the staff in Atlanta or if a decentralization is in order?

Two of the obvious candidates to succeed Vestal are Larry Hovis (NC) and Suzii Paynter (TX). After hearing the long explanations about these new changes, I'm not sure why the new Coordinator would even need to be located in Atlanta.

I'd like to see the CBF aggressively begin to pursue confronting "darkness" as Allan Bean suggests. There's nothing stopping our churches from doing so right now and other organizations from doing the same if they aren't already. But during this time of transition, the CBF is not in a position to do that until we get a new leader with a vision.

It is my hope that we can keep the waters calm and the CBF intact and avoid controversy for a time. But it seems some of my Texas brethren (including Texans who are not overly involved in CBF) are talking a little louder, trying to divide CBF along the Mississippi River. I don't think this is helpful at all.

BDW, I think your analysis of Bean's article is right on target. CBF is awaiting two things--the next strong leader and the next great cause. We have stopped talking in CBF gatherings about the SBC because they have moved so far to the right as to largely be irrelevant to the discussion of CBF's future. It's time for the embracing of a great cause. At times, we have been so involved in a scatter-gun approach that we have not bored in on issues that are difficult. It's time to do so.

I was very much in favor of the adoption of the UN Millenium Goals, but we can't possibly affect any change in all of them since they are so broad. Adopting one or two for the future would be much more vital so that the actions can be focused. Also, I see a hunger for wholistic evangelism among moderate Baptists calling people to God's love rather than just trying to keep them out of Hell. Churches can't be timid in the twenty-first century and survive. Neither can CBF.

[Sandy]

CBF is awaiting two things--the next strong leader and the next great cause. We have stopped talking in CBF gatherings about the SBC because they have moved so far to the right as to largely be irrelevant to the discussion of CBF's future.

CBF has to generate a greater awareness, within its circle of supporting congregations, of what it is up to, and where it is going. Granted, it's been seven years since I was a member of a CBF supporting congregation but that church was one of the few that had actually severed most of its ties with the SBC, and had moved on in a number of ways that many CBF supporting churches haven't gone. Even at that, it was more of a BGCT church than it was a CBF church, with CBF related ministries and causes being further down on the list in terms of congregational awareness. And in that particular church, from what I hear, that hasn't changed much. If that's a "core supporter" with unique affiliation, what happens in the 90% of CBF churches that remain dually affiliated with the SBC? The confederation and structure of CBF is too loose. Before it can find a "cause" against which to shine that candle, it's going to have to identify where the support is going to come from, and instead of sitting back on its collective behind, dialoguing in gatherings, waiting for the interest to come its way, it will have to pursue and promote to get it.

The organization has always taken a position of not taking a position, in order to be "inclusive" of everyone, mainly Southern Baptists who were unhappy with the direction the SBC was going. So it was a place to register a protest against the personalities of the leaders who had been chosen, as well as against the specific "theological position" that it represented. The problem has been that, clearly, many of those upset with the personalities didn't have all that much of a problem with the theological position. Now, within CBF, you have a lot of individuals in a lot of churches who believe in a literal interpretation of an inerrant, infallible Bible, a real heaven, a real hell, a real devil, and a real spiritual conversion experience in the same context that most Southern Baptists accept. And a dependence on the money contributed by those churches has developed in CBF's budget. On the other side, you have a generation of graduates of the seminaries and divinity schools funded by CBF who are well off to the left, and are pushing for their organization to take the path of spending its resources and energy because they believe that pursuing social justice causes is a "Christian salvation experience."

Forgive my borrowing of the analogy, but as the candle continues to burn, the wax keeps melting.

[Timothy Bonney]

But Tim, Beal was addressing CBF not, the SBC of your Youth. Which by the way as I have said before seems to have been quite different from my 48 years SBC experience as an adult. Of course as an Adult I had a choice of churches.

Sorry Ed, I was obviously too oblique in my comment. I tend to agree with the author that the SBC has stuck with "turn or burn" theology and that the CBF seems to need to find another song than the song of exile from the SBC. Frankly they are better off without the SBC in its current incarnation as it moves from fundamentalism to a fight between semi-calvinist fundamentalists and neo-calvinist fundamentalists.

[Sandy]

But Tim, Beal was addressing CBF not, the SBC of your Youth. Which by the way as I have said before seems to have been quite different from my 48 years SBC experience as an adult. Of course as an Adult I had a choice of churches.

Sorry Ed, I was obviously too oblique in my comment. I tend to agree with the author that the SBC has stuck with "turn or burn" theology and that the CBF seems to need to find another song than the song of exile from the SBC. Frankly they are better off without the SBC in its current incarnation as it moves from fundamentalism to a fight between semi-calvinist fundamentalists and neo-calvinist fundamentalists.

Seems like the rift in CBF may be a bit more interesting to watch, between its traditionalists who are happy with an organization that isn't the SBC, and the younger generation of seminary and divinity school graduates who want to put some movement in the dialogue and gathering, and head out to end social justice, but who must first eliminate the Fellowship's own hangups over homosexuality first. CBF has operated on a declining, shoestring budget for a decade now, appeasing those it enticed to join by taking an anti-homosexual position related to its financial support and in-house operations, but appeasing those on the other side with the "not taking a position" position. It does not appear that position is going to survive Daniel Vestal.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: TIC-Sandy do you really believe the younger generation of seminary and divinity school graduates,... and head out to end social justice ?

To Aaron Weaver and Dave Roberts, I am having a tough time putting into words my reactions to what you are each saying in this thread. So please bear with me a bit as I think out loud. It seems that both of you are looking to to CBF as a delivery system rather than as a facilitator, conduit, network and think tank. I am persuaded that the second model is the more needed.

The Houston Chronicle March 6 2007 carried this as a part of the Obit on our greatest benefactor to date.

John F. Baugh, the founder of Houston-based Sysco Corp., the nation's largest restaurant food supplier, and a benefactor of Baptist universities, died Monday in San Antonio. He was 91.

Baugh gave $25 million to Baylor University in his hometown of Waco and was a founding trustee of Houston Baptist University.

Baugh left his job as a grocery store manager in 1946 to start a company distributing frozen peaches and strawberries to bakeries, cafeterias and hospitals. He made the deliveries, while his wife, Eula Mae, managed the books.

I believe we can learn great lessons from Mr. Baugh; Focus on meeting needs that you can meet. Note he did not start with thousands of products. Do not try to be all things to all people but treat all people fairly (even Juge Pressler). Drive a truck only until you can afford to hire reliable truck drivers. Find reliable trustworthy suppliers. Move stuff in and out of the warehouse quickly to assure freshness. Do not go into competition with either your suppliers or your customers. Know your limits and have an understanding of the "span of control concept". Delegate both responsibility and authority.

Allan Bean seems to be meeting a real need with his Friends of Justice organization and perhaps it needs to be expanded, and perhaps CBS could assist but not by assimilating or duplicating Bean's organization. Colleen and David Burroughs have done/are doing great things with Passport with assistance from CBF but it has to stay independent to maintain the flexibility that is and has been its strength. As Aaron points out Parham has kept vital issues in front of us so has Brent walker. A good part of my library has come from Smyth and Helwys but CBF does not own S&H nor are the my sole supplier of christian reading materials and Walker and Parham do not work for CBF.

And Aaron I shout NO when you ask "Also, can we really make a judgment about the CBF and our 20-year history based on the content of one particular sermon - this year's sermon - by Vestal? "

And I agree when you say "I've heard Vestal speak passionately, calling CBFers to be the "presence of Christ" and confront social injustices. His sermon in Fort Worth was not one of those kind of sermons. That's perfectly fine. But because it wasn't that kind of sermon, I don't think its fair to make any sweeping conclusions. " And I like the reference to "this years sermon" rather than Bean's use of "Vestals Final Sermon". Danial is making a transition, he has not died, nor has he retired from God's service, nor is he going away. I look forward to more sermons from him even if not in a CBF Assembly format.

But I believe we need to focus on what folk in the pew understand of doing church and help them expand on that in what ever direction the Spirit of God leads them as individuals and Churches . In doing some surfing the other day I came across a 2009 paper by you on the history of the Baptist Alliance which was quite good, (not perfect ), have you written or do you know of a similar paper on the history CBF. I am not enthused with the Wicki article. And noting else I have found on CBF seems to have the same degree of focus as you paper on the Alliance.

[Timothy Bonney]

While the author mentioned homosexuality the CBF wouldn't have to change its position on homosexuality to be involved in social justice ministries to the poor and needy Sandy. The ABC does it as does the UMC and both have official positions opposing homosexuality.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed and Aaron, you both make good points. Also I think it is fair to say that the author (like myself) has been away from the CBF long enough that he is an outsider. That is both a positive and a negative to his evaluation. He is looking at the CBF as an ABCer rather than a CBF member. The ABC and CBF are much more different in structure than it would first appear at a glance. And certainly the culture and history are very different and those are things that are hard to learn from the outside.

My newbie experience as a United Methodist is that you can be taught the history, theology, and polity of a denomination but you can't be taught the subtle cultural mores that are part of an organization that even its own members don't realize are there because they take them for granted. Their way of doing things is ingrained so much in who they are that they don't realize it might need to be explained to an outsider.

If the author doesn't have a CBF perspective he does have some objectivity but he also is handicapped by really not having worked in the organization to know how it feels from the inside.

[Sandy]

While the author mentioned homosexuality the CBF wouldn't have to change its position on homosexuality to be involved in social justice ministries to the poor and needy Sandy. The ABC does it as does the UMC and both have official positions opposing homosexuality.

True. But I think, among CBF's "non-traditionalists," there is a movement to make that change as part of what they see as moving forward.

[Timothy Bonney]

True. But I think, among CBF's "non-traditionalists," there is a movement to make that change as part of what they see as moving forward.

I think you are right about that. But I don't get a sense of what percentage that is of the whole or of those who are "non-traditionalist" for want of a more descriptive term.

I personally think the CBF is too conservative for that change to happen at this time. But again, I'm speaking as an outsider who is now way outside the CBF.

The truth that is often not noticed here on this forum is that the CBF is still pretty conservative. When I was in ABC leadership one of the fears of some of my friends on the General Board is that if the ABC had decided to merge with the CBF that it would make the denomination more conservative. I know that isn't how SBCers look at the CBF. But outside of the SBC and CBF it always looked like one group of conservatives being told by a group even more conservative that the first group wasn't conservative enough.

That is how the Calvinist debate appears to me now in the SBC. The fundamentalist leadership is being being challenged by a group that is even more fundamentalist than they are.

[Dave Roberts]

On the other side, you have a generation of graduates of the seminaries and divinity schools funded by CBF who are well off to the left, and are pushing for their organization to take the path of spending its resources and energy because they believe that pursuing social justice causes is a "Christian salvation experience."

Sandy, I don't know how many graduates you know personally from CBF related schools, but your caricature certainly does not fit those whom I know. My pastor is a graduate of a CBF related school, baptizes regularly, and hardly holds to the caricature of pursuing social justice as salvation. I have also had a staff member who is a recent graduate. I have a close friend who went back to seminary in her 50's and doesn't fit. My son spent three years in a CBF-supported school, and neither he nor the people I met through him seem to fit your stereotype. It seems you have been getting your view from somewhere besides the front row in this. I would much rather have one of these people who believes Matthew 25 literally, who believes that praying the Lord's prayer means working to fulfill "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" instead of just waiting for it to happen in heaven. They certainly don't subscribe to the heresy sweeping the SBC--not Calvinism but Dispensational Premillenialism. If you want to know some of the people from CBF schools, I would delight to let you have a first hand glimpse.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I like Bean's bigger message that the CBF needs an antagonist. What's the antagonist? What's the social injustice that we can collectively confront together with the CBF serving as a facilitator and promoter of our efforts?

I like that part of Bean's message. HOWEVER, I'll admit Ed that you were convincing in your commentary. After I read your comments, I reread the commentary. Bean was not fair to Vestal nor to CBFers. Jim Smith was charitable in his reply.

Had he dropped that rhetoric and those unfair characterizations and focused more on the good that we're doing and the good that is still left to be done along with the need to do these things together, then well, that would have been much appreciated (and probably a different article altogether!)

Bean's daughter has a PHD in Sociology from Harvard. She researches evangelicals and teaches at the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core. She goes to my dad's church (where Julie P-R used to pastor) and is an active Democrat (she volunteered for my father-in-law's campaign to be County Judge a while back). So I know her and my wife knows her well.

That said, I don't know her father too well beyond Friends of Justice (which I discovered about 4-5 years ago, a friend of mine was serving on the Board of Directors at the time). I'm not sure where Bean has been during those years you mention or what his involvement in ABC-USA was.

He has recently written from time to time for ABP though. I think he lives in Dallas or North Texas somewhere?

Also, I haven't written much on CBF. I did the Alliance paper because there is literally nothing on the Alliance history. But I'm pretty sure that Baptist History & Heritage Society has published a couple of things on CBF. Maybe a 30-page history written by Bill Hull in one of those Baptist History pamphlet-books?

My dad gives a handful of pages to CBF in his survey of Baptist history, In Search of the New Testament Church. That was in 2008-2009. And there's a chapter on the CBF - I think - in the book edited by Glenn Jonas around that same period titled "The Baptist River"

There is certainly much more to be written on the topic. We now have books about James Dunn, Cecil Sherman and and Jimmy Allen. But someone before too many years pass needs to start doing an oral history with Daniel Vestal.

Maybe now that he's "retired" (I expect we'll see Vestal in pulpits again within a year or so) from CBF, Vestal will write a book. He might not have much time as director of that new Baugh Center though. Nonetheless, I hope someone - one of the historians in the Atlanta area - will take the time to start getting his story down on tape. His story is obviously a very important part of our story as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Also, I really can't envision there being any movement any changes in the CBF right now on homosexuality. We had the Sexuality Conference. I don't know if it goes anywhere from there - at least not for the foreseeable future.

I do think that one day the policy will change. I don't think that day will be anytime soon. I think we're going to have a year or two of real transition. Nothing big is going to happen between now and next year's Assembly.

Those who want to see change would be wise not to push any changes at this point. With no leader in place, no #2 either, we're a little vulnerable. So, it is my hope that the Texas Baptist brethren like CBF of Texas take a breather and not worry outloud so much. Also, it is my hope that we ignore voices in our midst who are not CBF. One pastor who was quoted EXTENSIVELY in the Baptist Standard article on the future of the CBF is - as far as I can tell - not even associated with the CBF!

[Ed Pettibone]

While the author mentioned homosexuality the CBF wouldn't have to change its position on homosexuality to be involved in social justice ministries to the poor and needy Sandy. The ABC does it as does the UMC and both have official positions opposing homosexuality.

True. But I think, among CBF's "non-traditionalists," there is a movement to make that change as part of what they see as moving forward.

Ed: Sandy. I have no doubt there is a movement among some CBF non traditionalist and a long standing hand full of otherwise traditionalist who have long been associated with the alliance but but not all of the younger crowd follow the "non traditionalist". I base this on what I have heard when I have set in some of the young leaders conferences prior to the Assemblies prior to this year.

[Tim Dahl]

So, it is my hope that the Texas Baptist brethren like CBF of Texas take a breather and not worry outloud so much. Also, it is my hope that we ignore voices in our midst who are not CBF. One pastor who was quoted EXTENSIVELY in the Baptist Standard article on the future of the CBF is - as far as I can tell - not even associated with the CBF!

BDW,

If I may ask... What are my Texas Baptist Brethren saying? Are there some blog posts out there? Maybe something in the Standard?

I dare not ask for names, because I know how my Brethren can get back at you. But, I would like to know what is being said. It seems that CBF TX likes to keep a low profile, always playing second fiddle to the BGCT. I can understand that, though I wish CBF TX had more of a presence.

Anyway, just thought I would ask.

Tim

[Sandy]

So, it is my hope that the Texas Baptist brethren like CBF of Texas take a breather and not worry outloud so much. Also, it is my hope that we ignore voices in our midst who are not CBF. One pastor who was quoted EXTENSIVELY in the Baptist Standard article on the future of the CBF is - as far as I can tell - not even associated with the CBF!

BDW,

If I may ask... What are my Texas Baptist Brethren saying? Are there some blog posts out there? Maybe something in the Standard?

I dare not ask for names, because I know how my Brethren can get back at you. But, I would like to know what is being said. It seems that CBF TX likes to keep a low profile, always playing second fiddle to the BGCT. I can understand that, though I wish CBF TX had more of a presence.

Anyway, just thought I would ask.

Tim

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=53

That's a summary of what some of your Texas Baptist brethren are saying. I'm not sure which pastor BDW was referencing who made comments but isn't involved in CBF. Perhaps Michael Evans, who is president of the African American fellowship, is who he is referencing. Evan's church is not CBF, but in an organization like the fellowship, he could be there on his own. Jerry Carlisle, president of the BGCT, is pastor of FBC Plano, which is CBF affiliated.

From Alan Bean:
As the CBF and the SBC have drifted apart, both groups have redefined themselves. The SBC has embraced the old “heaven and hell” Christianity so characteristic of frontier revivalism. The evangelistic mission of the SBC may have been interpreted in softer terms by moderate SBC leaders between 1950 and 1975, but the kinder, gentler evangelism had been thoroughly eradicated by 1990. Since then, preachers who believe in a literal hell, a real heaven and a sure-’nuff Satan have had the stage to themselves.

If Vestal’s final sermon on the glory of God is anything to go by, the CBF loves the light but would rather not talk about the darkness. Using every rhetorical tool in the preacher’s tool kit, Vestal tried to get his audience fired up about the glory of God. He was only partially successful.

The CBF has always been unsure about the darkness. Do they believe in a real Satan and a real hell? Some may and some may not; but it hardly matters since hardly anyone affiliated with the group is comfortable with these dark concepts.

Interesting that he's a current resident of Texas, Arlington, I believe. I think a lot of his Texas Baptist CBF brethren are still leans a bit more toward belief in a literal heal, a real heaven and a sure-'nuff Satan, as well as a virgin born Jesus who was a real sacrifice for sin.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Yea, I was referring to Evans.

I've seen no proof of his past involvement in the CBF. You are right, his church isn't affiliated.

That Friday night, I think - actually I know - there were some who showed up to hear Vestal's final sermon as Coordinator and greet him afterwards. I know of a few BGCT folks who were there at the CBF for the 1st time. In the case of the folks I spoke with, they were invited by one of Vestal's kids. A BGCTer here at Baylor was present with his wife (who had gone to high school with Vestal).

Of all the CBF state organizations out there, Texas might be the most invisible. I'll stop there.

[Dave Roberts]

I think a lot of his Texas Baptist CBF brethren are still leans a bit more toward belief in a literal heal, a real heaven and a sure-'nuff Satan, as well as a virgin born Jesus who was a real sacrifice for sin.

I'm curious as to what you mean in the terms you used. "Literal heal," "real heaven," "sure-'nuff Satan," and "sacrifice for sin" presuppose a lot of interpretation--often volumes long. I would love to know what you mean by the terms you use. Virgin born, that one I'm pretty sure I understand, but the rest need lots of interpretation.

[Ed Pettibone]

I think a lot of his Texas Baptist CBF brethren are still leans a bit more toward belief in a literal heal, a real heaven and a sure-'nuff Satan, as well as a virgin born Jesus who was a real sacrifice for sin.

I'm curious as to what you mean in the terms you used. "Literal heal," "real heaven," "sure-'nuff Satan," and "sacrifice for sin" presuppose a lot of interpretation--often volumes long. I would love to know what you mean by the terms you use. Virgin born, that one I'm pretty sure I understand, but the rest need lots of interpretation.

Ed: Uh, Dave! I am pretty sure he meant "Literal Hell"