CBF Leadership Departures...

[Sandy]

When the fracture with the SBTC occurred, conservatives departing the BGCT cited its intention to partner closely with CBF, and to devote large amounts of budget receipts to the partnership projects. BGCT leadership was accused of actually planning to appropriate budget receipts from the churches to CBF apart from what it was already passing along through one of its budget giving plans. I'm pretty sure that was part of the plan, but at the time, churches were going over to the SBTC in droves, and that was a motivating factor. Eventually, the plan they put in place simply allowed churches to determine what percentage of their CP gifts would go to whatever national Baptist body they chose, CBF or SBC, or to keep it all in Texas if they wanted. Over 4,000 remaining BGCT churches have chosen an option which uniquely aligns them with the SBC, at percentages which average almost half of their total CP giving. Last time I read anything about it, there were about a hundred churches that were BGCT only, and about 70 that were CBF only, with about 200 churches splitting their giving between CBF and the SBC.

The SBTC is financially healthy, and it is very close to becoming the largest of the two state Baptist conventions in Texas. The last year I was in the state, more than 200 BGCT congregations switched affiliation, and more than 300 dropped their dual affiliation with the BGCT and aligned uniquely with the SBTC. The possibility of a closer relationship between the BGCT and CBF is a major factor in all of that. There are a number of BGCT leaders who have initiated an approach to bring the BGCT back closer to the SBC. That probably has a lot to do with the CBF state organization in Texas keeping a low profile.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I agree. I'm not sure though of the value of an organization that feels the need to keep a low-profile....

[Jerry_B]

I attended the CBF Gathering this year, my first national meeting, and was largely disappointed. There was a tremendous amount of work and planning that went on for the three days of activity, but in the end, I was just kinda ehh about the whole thing. Kinda feel the same way about the leadership changes, ehh. People leave, it happens. Besides, I couldn't tell you what they did anyway or how they impacted my church, so ehh on the whole thing.

[Sandy]

I attended the CBF Gathering this year, my first national meeting, and was largely disappointed. There was a tremendous amount of work and planning that went on for the three days of activity, but in the end, I was just kinda ehh about the whole thing. Kinda feel the same way about the leadership changes, ehh. People leave, it happens. Besides, I couldn't tell you what they did anyway or how they impacted my church, so ehh on the whole thing.

That was more or less my perspective of CBF when I left. Of course, as many people here are fond of saying, if you are in Texas, you have a different perspective. CBF is pretty much superfluous in Texas because the BGCT, for so many years, was the leading "moderate" led Baptist organization in the country, larger than the national CBF body, and providing "alternative" ministry outlets for Texas Baptists who didn't like the SBC's new leadership. If the leaders there had proceeded with caution, instead of attempting an all-out frontal assault to avenge their well-connected friends who were deposed by the conservative resurgence in the SBC, they might have kept the BGCT intact, and at the same time been able to connect churches that wanted no part of the SBC with CBF. But in the attempt to use their aggressiveness to punish the conservative resurgence financially through the CP, they drew a line in the sand. They lost two thousand churches directly, and discovered another four thousand in their midst who weren't all that unhappy with the SBC, and who were opposed to working with another Baptist body. I think the BGCT still makes the need for a CBF state organization in Texas superfluous, but Baptists are autonomous and can do as they please.

The enthusiasm and support for CBF has definitely waned in recent years. They've rolled out a lot of "exciting" initiatives, but the funding they receive is largely token, partner organizations are more or less left to raise most of their own support, and the national body slowly loses churches and financial contributors. There does not seem to be any kind of effort at all to stop the bleeding, as churches call pastors who are not really all that committed to CBF, so they just stop the financial support. It doesn't seem like there was ever much enthusiasm for the organization, and once the original leadership and vision departs, the wheels are going to come off. That's what this leadership departure appears to be doing, at any rate, though the attitude from within seems to be, "ho, hum, well, people come, people go, these leaders have other interests in other ministry areas." What I see is that they see there is no future in CBF, and that the budget decline and drop off in contributing churches will lead to layoffs, salary cuts and position elimination, and they don't want to get caught without a salary coming in.

[Matt Richard]

Ed: Sandy what you say points up the truth of what I have been saying; There is No singular model of state organization for CBF.

When you write "I was a member of what is arguably one of Texas' most visible, inner-circle CBF congregations for something like 13 years. I do not recall there ever being mention made of the state CBF organization. Even though the church eventually severed its ties to the SBC, though it still had a number of members who contributed to the CP, the BGCT was the overwhelming influence and denominational connection of the church, even before it left the SBC. The national CBF got some attention, the state organization wasn't on the radar screen."

I am of the opinion that you may have been to close to the forest to see the trees. That "Inner-circle of CBF" may have in fact been the State CBF of Texas at the time. OR it may have been but a set of "CBF wheels" attached to the chassis called the BGCT. Some times working with other sets of Wheels such as "the Texas Baptist Commited" later to develop in to a national organization called Mainstream Baptist. And then when I Texas I hear of other pieces of the Baptist tapestry. Please forgive my mixing of metaphors but to an outsider Texas Baptists are close to undefinable.

Ed: My second National CBF assembly was in Texas (Houston?) about 1997 when CBF was but 6 years old. Now, you can not tell me that All of those Texas folk had no organization. And that was in you 13 year span. My first Assembly was in Louisville the year before. I was involved with local transportation. Including this year back in Texas (Again), I have only missed three since then.

I make no claim for understanding TEXAS BAPTISTS they remind me of Johny Cash's Cadillac in "One piece at a time" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4pAwosnIQE But it does seem that Texas is more important than Baptist down there. Money and power seem to be more important than about any where else I have been Some where in all of that is a genuine Love of Jesus But they seem to still do a lot of infighting for a right hand seat in Glory.

Very interesting Ed. Maybe I am just a case in point for you, but here's where I personally am concerning CBF/Texas issues: I pastor a small Texas Baptist Church, and I was a Texas Baptist before I ever heard of the CBF. After going to seminary in Truett, I became more familiar with it, and have begun to participate in some aspects of CBF life. As I've learned more about it, I've come to see Texas Baptists as being defined as "truly moderate." I recently came back from a retreat with a CBF Fellows group I am a part of and discovered that many of the ministers in CBF life who are close to my age and live outside of Texas, want the CBF to be more progressive. Some expressed frustration that the organization doesn't do more to "place" females, and of course, the hiring policy and issues involving sexual orientation came up.

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy what you say points up the truth of what I have been saying; There is No singular model of state organization for CBF.

When you write "I was a member of what is arguably one of Texas' most visible, inner-circle CBF congregations for something like 13 years. I do not recall there ever being mention made of the state CBF organization. Even though the church eventually severed its ties to the SBC, though it still had a number of members who contributed to the CP, the BGCT was the overwhelming influence and denominational connection of the church, even before it left the SBC. The national CBF got some attention, the state organization wasn't on the radar screen."

I am of the opinion that you may have been to close to the forest to see the trees. That "Inner-circle of CBF" may have in fact been the State CBF of Texas at the time. OR it may have been but a set of "CBF wheels" attached to the chassis called the BGCT. Some times working with other sets of Wheels such as "the Texas Baptist Commited" later to develop in to a national organization called Mainstream Baptist. And then when I Texas I hear of other pieces of the Baptist tapestry. Please forgive my mixing of metaphors but to an outsider Texas Baptists are close to undefinable.

Ed: My second National CBF assembly was in Texas (Houston?) about 1997 when CBF was but 6 years old. Now, you can not tell me that All of those Texas folk had no organization. And that was in you 13 year span. My first Assembly was in Louisville the year before. I was involved with local transportation. Including this year back in Texas (Again), I have only missed three since then.

I make no claim for understanding TEXAS BAPTISTS they remind me of Johny Cash's Cadillac in "One piece at a time" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4pAwosnIQE But it does seem that Texas is more important than Baptist down there. Money and power seem to be more important than about any where else I have been Some where in all of that is a genuine Love of Jesus But they seem to still do a lot of infighting for a right hand seat in Glory.

Matt Richard: Very interesting Ed. Maybe I am just a case in point for you, but here's where I personally am concerning CBF/Texas issues: I pastor a small Texas Baptist Church, and I was a Texas Baptist before I ever heard of the CBF. After going to seminary in Truett, I became more familiar with it, and have begun to participate in some aspects of CBF life. As I've learned more about it, I've come to see Texas Baptists as being defined as "truly moderate." I recently came back from a retreat with a CBF Fellows group I am a part of and discovered that many of the ministers in CBF life who are close to my age and live outside of Texas, want the CBF to be more progressive. Some expressed frustration that the organization doesn't do more to "place" females, and of course, the hiring policy and issues involving sexual orientation came up.

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

Ed: Matt my first response is; Are you in total agreement with all upcoming leaders in the BGCT, including those who promote at least some current SBC policies?

Then I would be interested in knowing more about the retreat you attended. How was it promoted? How where participants selected? How many guest participants? Who sponsored and staffed the retreat? And what was the Age spread? What was the Male / Female ratio?

And then; Did you discuss your concerns with your fellow retreat participants and or the organizers? If So what sort of feed back did you get. And do you personally believe that the majority of CBF churches consider female Pastoral candidates equal consideration with their male counterparts? How about other staff positions?

And I have to say, I really do not see the CBF of Texas and the BGCT as necessitating an either or choice for you any more than ABC-USA/NYS and The Baptist Fellowship of the Northeast does for me. Having reviewed your post, from over the past year, I think you can benefit both organizations and both can benefit you.

[Matt Richard]

Ed: Sandy what you say points up the truth of what I have been saying; There is No singular model of state organization for CBF.

When you write "I was a member of what is arguably one of Texas' most visible, inner-circle CBF congregations for something like 13 years. I do not recall there ever being mention made of the state CBF organization. Even though the church eventually severed its ties to the SBC, though it still had a number of members who contributed to the CP, the BGCT was the overwhelming influence and denominational connection of the church, even before it left the SBC. The national CBF got some attention, the state organization wasn't on the radar screen."

I am of the opinion that you may have been to close to the forest to see the trees. That "Inner-circle of CBF" may have in fact been the State CBF of Texas at the time. OR it may have been but a set of "CBF wheels" attached to the chassis called the BGCT. Some times working with other sets of Wheels such as "the Texas Baptist Commited" later to develop in to a national organization called Mainstream Baptist. And then when I Texas I hear of other pieces of the Baptist tapestry. Please forgive my mixing of metaphors but to an outsider Texas Baptists are close to undefinable.

Ed: My second National CBF assembly was in Texas (Houston?) about 1997 when CBF was but 6 years old. Now, you can not tell me that All of those Texas folk had no organization. And that was in you 13 year span. My first Assembly was in Louisville the year before. I was involved with local transportation. Including this year back in Texas (Again), I have only missed three since then.

I make no claim for understanding TEXAS BAPTISTS they remind me of Johny Cash's Cadillac in "One piece at a time" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4pAwosnIQE But it does seem that Texas is more important than Baptist down there. Money and power seem to be more important than about any where else I have been Some where in all of that is a genuine Love of Jesus But they seem to still do a lot of infighting for a right hand seat in Glory.

Matt Richard: Very interesting Ed. Maybe I am just a case in point for you, but here's where I personally am concerning CBF/Texas issues: I pastor a small Texas Baptist Church, and I was a Texas Baptist before I ever heard of the CBF. After going to seminary in Truett, I became more familiar with it, and have begun to participate in some aspects of CBF life. As I've learned more about it, I've come to see Texas Baptists as being defined as "truly moderate." I recently came back from a retreat with a CBF Fellows group I am a part of and discovered that many of the ministers in CBF life who are close to my age and live outside of Texas, want the CBF to be more progressive. Some expressed frustration that the organization doesn't do more to "place" females, and of course, the hiring policy and issues involving sexual orientation came up.

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

Ed: Matt my first response is; Are you in total agreement with all upcoming leaders in the BGCT, including those who promote at least some current SBC policies?

Then I would be interested in knowing more about the retreat you attended. How was it promoted? How where participants selected? How many guest participants? Who sponsored and staffed the retreat? And what was the Age spread? What was the Male / Female ratio?

And then; Did you discuss your concerns with your fellow retreat participants and or the organizers? If So what sort of feed back did you get. And do you personally believe that the majority of CBF churches consider female Pastoral candidates equal consideration with their male counterparts? How about other staff positions?

And I have to say I really do not see the CBF of Texas and the BGCT as necessitating an either or choice for you any more than ABC-USA/NYS and The Baptist Fellowship of the Northeast does for me. Having reviewed your post, from over the past year, I think you can benefit both organizations and both can benefit you.

Total agreement is a strong phrase! I'm not sure I can claim "total agreement" with anyone. I am not completely against the BGCT having ties with the SBC, but I identify more with the CBF on the national level. That's what I mean about Texas being truly moderate!

The retreat was part of a 2-year cohort group for ministers who have been out of seminary approx. 2 years. It is funded by the Lilly grant, and I was notified by email from my seminary about it. I had to apply and be accepted. There are 25 people total in the group with an average age of about 28. 5 of the participants are women, out of 6 total that originally applied. It took place at CBF headquarters in Georgia. The project director is Terry Hamrick, and the other instructors are from the Center of Congregational Health.

There was not much time to talk about these concerns, other than in informal setting in the evening hours. I do meet with several "likeminded" minsters in my area on a semi-regular basis. As far as CBF churches giving women equal treatment, I can't claim to be informed. I know that one of the hot topics after hours was that Women in Ministry counts 150 women who are pastors in Baptist life (this includes alliance churches). Some were frustrated that this was a low number, others were upset that such a big deal was being made out of it.
being
Personally, I think CBF is doing all it can to promote and support women in ministry. But they cannot MAKE churches hire them, or "place" them somewhere. I voiced this opinion, but it did not seem to be favored.

I agree that I can benefit from both BGCT and Texas CBF, but I'm not sure of the necessity of it. I don't feel pressure to choose either or, but I do have time constraints.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

The word "place" might make some uncomfortable given our historic commitment to church freedom. But let's not kid ourselves, fresh seminary grads - those "preacher boys" - get "placed" in some sense of the word all the time....

The discussion you describe is clearly happening among quite a few CBFers. See this recent ABP opinion column.

Unlike the author of that column, I don't have any real criticisms of CBF on this front. I think CBF is doing its job - best I can tell. HOWEVER, it seems that seminaries have a great responsibility to help and assist their grads find ministry opportunities. Right?

Perhaps "place" isn't the best word choice. I think some CBF-partner seminaries have done better than others at working to open up doors for their female grads and giving local churches friendly encouragement to consider female candidates and a little lobbying of the local smaller churches to let women do some supply preaching.

There's a new book on Southern Baptist women (includes moderates) that includes field interviews with alums of your alma mater that are critical of the effort put out on the seminary's end to help open up doors for female seminarians.

My mother-in-law is a fellow alum of yours Matt. She's ordained (Calvary Baptist) and a pretty decent preacher. In her mid-50s, she can preach a better sermon than just about any 25-year old recent graduate. But the preaching opportunities in Central Texas are nonexistent. She's been in the pulpit of a nearby rural UMC church (as have half the female seminary students around here!) and a nondenom church of a fellow alum. Aside from a sermon at the church that ordained her, she got an opportunity to preach at a small BGCT church that had recently been rocked by a child sex abuse scandal. When your beloved pastor molests many of the church's young boys, I guess inviting a woman to preach isn't a big deal!

CBF seminaries accept women, affirm their calling to pastoral ministry, local churches will ordain the seminarians. But then what? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps? A little hard to do.

But back to my original point, how many male pastors out there have been "placed" in some sense of that word. A respected reference put in a call to an influential church member to get that male candidate's resume to the top of the stack? A little behind-the-scenes lobbying on someone's behalf? That's part of the process. I just think more of what's been done for many men for years and years needs to be done for female candidates. And there needs to be some programmatic intentionality.

Again, some seminaries are already doing a fine job. But from the feedback of many CBF women, this isn't the case everywhere...

This is of course a complex, nuanced issue. But, I think there is more that can be done. However, I also think that CBF itself has done quite a bit over the years. I just believe there's more that can be done from the people, churches and institutions that make up the CBF family.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: More of those CBF Women looking for a pastorate need to look Northward.

http://www.abpnews.com/blog/uncategoriz ... 012-08-20/
Aug 17, 2012 – The number of ABC/USA women pastors or co-pastors currently stands at 485.

[Matt Richard]

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

The word "place" might make some uncomfortable given our historic commitment to church freedom. But let's not kid ourselves, fresh seminary grads - those "preacher boys" - get "placed" in some sense of the word all the time....

The discussion you describe is clearly happening among quite a few CBFers. See this recent ABP opinion column.

Unlike the author of that column, I don't have any real criticisms of CBF on this front. I think CBF is doing its job - best I can tell. HOWEVER, it seems that seminaries have a great responsibility to help and assist their grads find ministry opportunities. Right?

Perhaps "place" isn't the best word choice. I think some CBF-partner seminaries have done better than others at working to open up doors for their female grads and giving local churches friendly encouragement to consider female candidates and a little lobbying of the local smaller churches to let women do some supply preaching.

There's a new book on Southern Baptist women (includes moderates) that includes field interviews with alums of your alma mater that are critical of the effort put out on the seminary's end to help open up doors for female seminarians.

My mother-in-law is a fellow alum of yours Matt. She's ordained (Calvary Baptist) and a pretty decent preacher. In her mid-50s, she can preach a better sermon than just about any 25-year old recent graduate. But the preaching opportunities in Central Texas are nonexistent. She's been in the pulpit of a nearby rural UMC church (as have half the female seminary students around here!) and a nondenom church of a fellow alum. Aside from a sermon at the church that ordained her, she got an opportunity to preach at a small BGCT church that had recently been rocked by a child sex abuse scandal. When your beloved pastor molests many of the church's young boys, I guess inviting a woman to preach isn't a big deal!

CBF seminaries accept women, affirm their calling to pastoral ministry, local churches will ordain the seminarians. But then what? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps? A little hard to do.

But back to my original point, how many male pastors out there have been "placed" in some sense of that word. A respected reference put in a call to an influential church member to get that male candidate's resume to the top of the stack? A little behind-the-scenes lobbying on someone's behalf? That's part of the process. I just think more of what's been done for many men for years and years needs to be done for female candidates. And there needs to be some programmatic intentionality.

Again, some seminaries are already doing a fine job. But from the feedback of many CBF women, this isn't the case everywhere...

This is of course a complex, nuanced issue. But, I think there is more that can be done. However, I also think that CBF itself has done quite a bit over the years. I just believe there's more that can be done from the people, churches and institutions that make up the CBF family.

The article you posted sums up some of the conversation I was referring to quite well. The frustration I have with the whole conversation is reflected in your last statement: "...I think there is more that can be done. However, I also think that CBF itself has done quite a bit over the years." I'm not sure what the CBF can do about that. Furthermore, I'm confused about the sentiment that is angered over women pastors "making news," but laments that not enough has been done to promote their "placement" in churches. That sounds contradictory. It seems to me that the author of that article is understandably frustrated that the issue is "complex and nuanced," as you said.

I was unaware about the book you mentioned, and would be very interested in the title. I know what you mean regarding the few positions available for women in Central Texas. I'm not sure what the particular criticisms of the seminary are regarding "placement" of women. I admit, placement exists to a degree in which you described, but at the same time, it has to be a candidate a church is willing to consider. When many of those male pastors get a referral on their behalf, it is likely to a church that is already open to accepting them. I don't see how "behind-the-scenes lobbying" can be encouraged through "programmatic intentionality." Again, "nuanced and complicated." Perhaps, what we have in common, is that we just are not sure what to do.

If I were to label a criticism against the seminary I attended in regards to its support of women, it might be that it promoted unrealistic expectations for them. We do not need to give up on promoting women in ministry, but we do owe them a realistic view of what they are going to face post-seminary. To my knowledge, that was not discussed very much.

[Timothy Bonney]

But if CBF is who they say they are, they do not "place" anyone. Nor do they take stands on doctrinal issues. If upcoming leaders in the organization do not understand this, I'll pick BGCT over Texas CBF any day.

I don't get the part Matt about the CBF not taking stands on doctrinal issues. Isn't part of the very existance of the CBF based on doctrinal disagreements with the SBC? I know the orgnization started in opposition to the takeover fundamentalists crowd in the SBC which was largely about power and control. But the SBC is pro-inerrancy theory the CBF hasn't been. The SBC turned anti-women in ministry, the CBF has been very supportive of women in ministry. Both of those are doctrinal stands.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Well, I agree with you that that sentiment is contradictory.

I'm not sure how many actually hold to that view (the ABP columnist view). Baptist Women in Ministry does not - as that organization regularly celebrates progress.

Here's an excerpt from "Into the Pulpit" by Elizabeth Flowers:

The women's studies scholar Susan Shaw, also an ordained Baptist pastor who had attended Southern Seminary, interviewed a group of female students at Truett School of Theology at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Truett was founded in 1994 as an alternative to the conservative-controlled Southwestern, and by 2005, the year of Shaw's interview, it had 285 students. Of these, 32 percent or 125 were women.

Two years later, Truett had 401 students and of these 118 werer women, making them 29 percent of the student population. Despite Truett's vocal commitment ot women in ministry, and Truett's percentage of female students did remain above that of the six official SBC schools, its percentage was among the lower half of the fourteen moderate institutions.

Women found the rhetoric of acceptance troubling when measured against the reality of their experience. The school, said LeAnne Gardner, "may pat women on the back and offer affirmation" but nevertheless "doesn't actively encourage churches to call these women as pastors."

It was, she said, "like there's one step missing; there is a lot of lip service, and it's not taken one step further." When Melissa Browning complained that she was never called from Truett's pulpit supply list, the staff told that that "a lot of churches don't want a woman." Brown immediately asked, "Well do you try to persuade them?"

I think Browning asked an important question. That's a question for all CBF-partner seminaries. CBF is not a complementarian organization. CBF has long staked out a handful of what are clear theological commitments. One such commitment is to women-in-ministry. While we don't have a creed requiring assent to that commitment, that commitment has been made real through CBF's support of ministries and institutions that promote an egalitarian perspective.

So, in light of those theological commitments, I believe CBF itself and CBF as a network of institutions and ministries has a duty to CONTINUE to live out that theological commitment and do so with, yes, "programmatic intentionality."

[Timothy Bonney]

The ABC also cannot make its churches call women clergy but I believe there are more women clergy in the ABC because the denomination actively promotes the Biblical nature of women's leadership. If the CBF wants to stay out of ALL doctrinal issues, what on earth is the CBF? After all aren't the concepts of Baptist freedom also doctrinal concerns?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Yes, those Baptist freedoms are real theological commitments, doctrinal ideas.

CBF has also taken positions on various social issues.

We don't have policy statements like ABC-USA or resolutions like SBC but our shared distinctives, common theological commitments are visible in various ways through the ministries of the CBF itself, CBF partners, at the General Assembly, CBF ministries, etc...

I'm not entirely sure what Matt means with that statement because the BGCT takes and has taken many more positions on theological and social issues through a very denominational process not unlike the SBC (and to some extent ABC-USA), with resolutions, a social ethics agency, and other similar entities.

Heck, the BGCT kicks more churches out than the SBC! So yea, they've established very very clear doctrinal parameters.

[Timothy Bonney]

Yes, those Baptist freedoms are real theological commitments, doctrinal ideas.

Yes, most certainly. Even being "non-creedal" and matters such as local church autonomy are doctrinal views as well as understandings of polity.

[Haruo]

I don't think Baptists have special freedoms, any more than Americans have special human rights. What's at issue is the understanding of Christian freedom.

[Timothy Bonney]

I don't think Baptists have special freedoms, any more than Americans have special human rights. What's at issue is the understanding of Christian freedom.

Baptists have a doctrine of freedom that is somewhat different from the way many churches view faith in Christ. It is a matter of emphasis. The Bible talks about freedom, discipline, and responsibility. Different churches/denominations place emphasis on different expressions of the Christian life. Baptist seem to talk about as much about freedom as any group I'm aware of. Methodists enjoy a very strong emphasis on all the facets of grace as well as an emphasis on discipline. I've found my Roman Catholic friends often talking of responsibility. All those things are in the Bible. It is just a matter of emphasis.

[Haruo]

Agreed.

[Matt Richard]

Yes, those Baptist freedoms are real theological commitments, doctrinal ideas.

CBF has also taken positions on various social issues.

We don't have policy statements like ABC-USA or resolutions like SBC but our shared distinctives, common theological commitments are visible in various ways through the ministries of the CBF itself, CBF partners, at the General Assembly, CBF ministries, etc...

I'm not entirely sure what Matt means with that statement because the BGCT takes and has taken many more positions on theological and social issues through a very denominational process not unlike the SBC (and to some extent ABC-USA), with resolutions, a social ethics agency, and other similar entities.

Heck, the BGCT kicks more churches out than the SBC! So yea, they've established very very clear doctrinal parameters.

BGCT is a convention. That is in keeping with their polity. CBF is a fellowship. My understanding of the CBF is that it is supposed to honor the freedom of a church to do ministry as it is led. That doesn't mean it doesn't support and encourage its shared values/distinctives (even if they are doctrinal in nature). What I find ironic, is that some of the feelings expressed in that article and the book you referenced seem to indicate that some would like to push for conformity around all of those distinctives.

Does CBF want to be a "fellowship" or a denomination? That's what I'm struggling to understand in the limited exposure I've had with it.

What I appreciate about the BGCT is that it allows for freedom in the areas of financial giving, calling women to serve, etc. Even if it is a convention with official doctrinal statements.

I know it may sound easy for me to take a more relaxed view of pushing women in ministry in churches that are resistant, but I'm not so sure it would be wise for a women to go and serve in a congregation that had to be "convinced" into calling her.

[Timothy Bonney]

I know it may sound easy for me to take a more relaxed view of pushing women in ministry in churches that are resistant, but I'm not so sure it would be wise for a women to go and serve in a congregation that had to be "convinced" into calling her.

And the problem is that often until congregations have had a woman pastor the first time they hang on to their stereotypes about women. And often enough search committees aren't forward thinking. Instead they often want to pick a pastor that no one will be offended by. Well guess what, often that isn't the pastor the church needs.

The reason the ABC/USA can actively encourage women clergy to be considered is that the practice of the ABC is that the denomination has a profile of each ABC pastor and when a church is looking for a pastor they do a profile search through the region headquarters which is brought to them by someone on region staff. So when women's names pop up the region staff can be encouraging about talking to all the candidates irrespective of gender.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Daniel Vestal helped "convince" Calvary Baptist in Waco to call Julie Pennington-Russell.

That worked out pretty well. It's not like anyone is acting CBF or a CBF-partnered seminary to really and truly "convince" any church. Surely there is no problem with nudging a church that has already publicly affirmed their commitment women-in-ministry?

These aren't complementarians that need to be "convinced." These are people and churches who identify as egalitarians and in many cases have already ordained a female or had females preach from their pulpits AND even had a female serve as an associate pastor but just not yet called a woman to be the senior pastor....

The CBF is definitely much more decentralized that BGCT. CBF doesn't have control over partner institutions. But it's not like the BGCT has too much power over its many colleges and universities either.

I frankly don't see much value in the "denomination" question: is it or isn't it. Because all denominations are different.

And even though CBF is much more decentralized, it is still an organization that has annual business meetings where business is discussed and measures are adopted, etc. In that regard, CBF is no different than the BGCT which also conducts business at its annual meeting where "members" vote (same as CBF).

And speaking about Texas specifically, it's still a boys club. There is quite a bit of progress to be made in Texas. Even the anti-fundamentalist crusader David Currie - the leader of the moderate movement in Texas - wasn't exactly interested in a truly egalitarian Baptist denomination.

[Matt Richard]

Daniel Vestal helped "convince" Calvary Baptist in Waco to call Julie Pennington-Russell.

That worked out pretty well. It's not like anyone is acting CBF or a CBF-partnered seminary to really and truly "convince" any church. Surely there is no problem with nudging a church that has already publicly affirmed their commitment women-in-ministry?

These aren't complementarians that need to be "convinced." These are people and churches who identify as egalitarians and in many cases have already ordained a female or had females preach from their pulpits AND even had a female serve as an associate pastor but just not yet called a woman to be the senior pastor....

The CBF is definitely much more decentralized that BGCT. CBF doesn't have control over partner institutions. But it's not like the BGCT has too much power over its many colleges and universities either.

I frankly don't see much value in the "denomination" question: is it or isn't it. Because all denominations are different.

And even though CBF is much more decentralized, it is still an organization that has annual business meetings where business is discussed and measures are adopted, etc. In that regard, CBF is no different than the BGCT which also conducts business at its annual meeting where "members" vote (same as CBF).

And speaking about Texas specifically, it's still a boys club. There is quite a bit of progress to be made in Texas. Even the anti-fundamentalist crusader David Currie - the leader of the moderate movement in Texas - wasn't exactly interested in a truly egalitarian Baptist denomination.

I think the kind of "convincing" you described is different from what I took the passage in the book to mean, and what I've interpreted some would like to see happen. Of course, what you described is appropriate. And I would hope Truett would encourage churches who are already egalitarian in nature to consider female pastors. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard of a sell.

And I agree, Texas is far from perfect. I did not mean to sound as if we have it altogether. I think one reason it is more of a "boy's club," as you say, is because the churches themselves tend to be more conservative as a whole.