BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I like David Gushee, my wife was one of his students when D.G. was at Southern struggling with Al Mohler's new idenity and I consider him a very competent ethicist. My Ethics mentor Henlee Barnette with whom, at that time I and some of Trudy's classmates had lunch a couple times a week, was impressed with D.G. felt that he demonstrated great potential.

But here again we have William who has never been active in CBF (True - he has attended a few hours of a couple CBF national assemblies and has shared a few meals with some of we BL.Com participants) in agreement with a former active CBF participant who ceased active participation after his choice candidate for a office in the organization was rejected for another candidate was, trying to explain to those of us who have been more active much longer why Gushee who had an affinity with a number of CBF activist for some years before he stopped eating from a SBC table, and moved into a strong CBF supporting institution has sufficient experience with CBF to speak as an authority regarding what we need to do.

I was pleased to see Gushee make the move from Union to Mercer but I am not persuaded that he is as much in touch with the wants and needs of the typical grassroots CBFer .

On the other hand I am not real sure how well Lee ( Sandy) Sanders and William Thornton or I for that matter interpret what Gushee is saying. I think Sanders and Thornton credit it with more weight than do I. Maybe Fox can get him to come here an tell us what he was saying.

What Gushee said was he desired a “stronger concept of leadership” more willing to be out front with theological and ethical public statements. Being authoritative (not authoritarian) which means true to the facts but not imposing sanctions on those who disagree. Not that the CBF was “leaderless” or “rudderless” in serving congregations or missions.

to give it context.

I concur with Gushee and also find little fault in the CBF (although I have been largely out of touch for several years, choosing to speak publicly herein on theological, ethical and political issues {especially those that have an ethical content which is most everything political}).

I take Ed's point about my being an occasional attendee at CBF stuff. If any of my vast number of CBF friends plan to be in Atlanta this year, I will plan to attend, assuming they will be willing associate with a loyal SBCer.

My interest is that of a casual outsider. I thought Gushee was quite bold in addressing the ex-SBC theme that runs through the CBF and what needs to be done about it. The observation about lack of strong leadership seemed to be to be on target and one that might make CBF leaders past and present uncomfortable. Dan Vestal went underground years ago and the new leader might be offended by Gushee's statements on leadership.

A statement of faith from the CBF? The horror!

Ed, that was a name-dropping tour de force worthy of Fox. Blue star for you, bro.

Gushee offers an objective view, which many in CBF are unable to see. That is one of the reasons that it has never been able to shake its image as "the Anti-SBC," or "ex-SBC." It's leaders marched away from the SBC in Atlanta over twenty years ago, expecting half the convention to follow. When that failed to materialize, they tried to recreate their lost structure as much as possible, with significantly reduced resources and a huge loss of prestige. In all honesty, there are fewer than 200 churches that severed ties with the SBC, and are uniquely aligned with CBF, most of the rest, according to their own website not more than a total of 1000, are somewhere along the spectrum of support for the Cooperative Program, from allowing a few SBC loyalists the privilege of giving, to churches that allow a few CBF supporters the same privilege. They are scattered all around the country, with a cluster of maybe 250-300 in North Carolina and Virginia, a smaller cluster in Georgia and South Carolina, and maybe 150 in Texas. The rest are dotted here and there. I would say that a majority are indistinguishable in identity from their SBC brethren, down to holding similar views on inerrancy, ordaining women and homosexuality.

I get it Ed. You are highly experienced and knowledgable about the CBF. I agree with that. All was attempting to say before you gave me your entire history with the CBF was that being very much an insider means you know a great deal but it gives you a potential blind spot because you are so highly committed to the organization. You can believe that or not. Doesn't matter to me.

Actually, Gushee is in touch with the evolution of CBF. There is a need for more forceful leadership. CBF was born after a series of SBC movements with presidents, almost all of who could have been named "Dr. Ram R. Jammer" because of their "my way or the highway" approach. For that very reason, CBF shied away from strong roles for leadership. Where CBF is flourishing, especially in VA and NC, there is a strong group of leaders emerging who are not afraid to speak to their stands on issues or theology. I see a greater avoidance of stronger leadership in places like GA and TX, where there are more dually aligned churches. The situation is not the same as it was in 1991, and those who understand this welcome the evolution of CBF. A few weeks before he died, I was with Cecil Sherman who said then, "CBF is waiting for the emergence of its next strong leader." Gushee is simply following up on what Sherman said.

You guys are closer but I'd have to ask exactly what DV did in the way of strong leadership.

Gold star, Sandy.

I'm curious. Since you knew chafin somewhat what do you make of his gaffe (if that is what it was) on Donahue way back when?

I perceive Dan Vestal much more as one who tried to establish firm foundations for the future of CBF. He was in the mold much more of "servant leadership" than ever in the mold of charismatic leadership. He was not the high profile lightning rod that Sherman was. I am anxious to see how our new leader does in her role, but I like what I have seen to this point.

Sandy, I know you will cheerlead for CBF's failure, and that's okay if you want to. One of the biggest initiatives I see right now is the investment into young leaders. The investment in money and in teaching and conference time with younger leaders is already beginning to pay dividends. My son is in the program now. A successor of mine in a church is a person who has developed out of the program. I think that is one of the great stories right now for CBF.