Clarity of Church Identity

[Tim Bonney]

Oh, Dave, as to the pastor's name on the United Methodist church, my name isn't on the sign at my church at all. Pastors are itinerant. Why would you put their name on the church sign?

[Sandy]

I don't know whether identifying a church by its specific affiliation, and the alphabet soup we use, would be useful or more confusing. If you were in Texas or Virginia, you'd have to know specifically what BGAV, SBCV, SBTC and BGCT meant. And since there are still a relatively large number of CBF affiliated churches that are still cooperating with the SBC, is that a separate identity from the few that are uniquely CBF aligned?

Without already having a system in place, it seems like it would be difficult to switch over to a system of calling pastors exclusively from an endorsed list. You'd have to change the polity of most churches, and re-write the constitution and bylaws to restrict pastor searches only to the list of individuals who were endorsed, and you'd also have to change the polity of CBF, if it were the "endorsing" agency, to allow it to have authority to approve, or reject, pastoral candidates based on whatever standards it chose. It might be difficult to reconcile that with CBF's current philosophy and structure. Then, you'd have to make sure the pastor search committee was aware of the policy, and willing to adhere to it. And how would the criteria for getting endorsed be developed? How do you enforce it?

[Tim Bonney]

The ABC/USA churches decide individually if they will follow the recognition list in the ABPS system. Most do because it is a protection for the local church as recognized pastors are vetted, background checked etc. But there is no enforcement as ABC churches are still autonomous.

The alphabet soup you mentioned relates directly back to what David mentioned. Baptists in the south have an identity crisis. Growing up the churches I was a part of were clear that they were Southern Baptist. ABC churches are usually clear that they are ABC/USA with logos on signs etc. But the splintering of the SBC would make it very hard for me to figure out the church affiliation even if all that soup was on the sign. I don't know the meaning of some of the acronyms you listed. So what chance does someone who didn't grow up in the SBC have of figuring all that out?

I'm not arguing for this as it doesn't fit your polity. But UMC pastors cannot hold duel credentials. Because your membership in the UMC is vested in your clergy credentials and conference membership and not local church membership (which I don't have) the UMC does not allow you to hold credentials in more than one denomination at the same time.

But in Baptist life someone can claim to be both an SBC and a CBF pastor at the same time. Now to anyone not familiar with the history of the SBC that would come across is pretty confusing.

[Sandy]

For the most part, if you are in the south, and you are looking for a uniquely aligned SBC church, finding one isn't a problem. With the exception of Texas and Virginia, where the state conventions have divided into relatively equal groups, the vast majority of Baptist churches you find will be uniquely aligned with the SBC, and with the state convention of the state you are in. The total number of SBC churches has increased since the resurgence, and the number of churches that have actually severed their ties with the convention is fewer than 250 altogether. With over 45,000 uniquely aligned churches, over 32,000 of them in the Southern states, finding an SBC church is easy.

Finding CBF congregations is more difficult. I belonged to one of the uniquely aligned CBF churches that cut ties with the SBC, but would be hard pressed to find specific things which identified that congregation with CBF. You could walk in, attend worship, pick up a bulletin, and read a couple of newsletters and not know it was CBF. You'd have to search its website to find that stated somewhere. And I can't really think of anything they do that is specific to a "CBF" identity. When it comes down to it, disagreement over whose set of friends and colleagues would have the power of influence in the SBC bureacracy has been, and will continue to be, the distinguishing identity of CBF. Perhaps those churches which share a common view of ordaining women to the ministry, and tend to be somewhat progressive in theology, may be an identifying characteristic, but it seems like a majority of CBF affiliated churches don't ordain women. You have to look at the website to find CBF affiliated congregations, they are few and far between, even in the South, about 900 or so on the website, which is far less than the 1,800 estimated by some. Last estimate I heard, about 150 were uniquely aligned, not also cooperating with the SBC, and that's the other major factor in identity. Most of CBF is still also Southern Baptist. That's an obstacle to any progress in developing and maintaining an identity as a group.

[Tim Bonney]

Last I read only about 10% of people looking for a new church look based on denominational affiliation. Of that 10% if they are going to have to do some real digging to figure out the affiliation then you wonder how many will just go elsewhere?

I don't know how many lay people know denominational logos well. But I bet most Southern Baptist, United Methodists and Presbyterians etc. can identify their denominational logo. Does the CBF have an identifiable logo that is used on signs?

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

I can't find a good image to cut and paste here, but CBF has what I would consider to be a pretty good logo, a spiral that is wrapped in the shape of a globe, above the name with the letters in "fellowship" aligned to make a cross at the end. I can't say that I've ever seen it on a church sign, though.

This isn't the time, though, when establishing a denominational style identity, or strengthening the identity of a church to its denomination, is what churches are doing. CBF made a concerted effort at the outset to avoid being classified as a denomination, and to avoid identity as one. And within CBF, I'm not sure that there's even much awareness of what the organization does beyond the 1,500 or so people that regularly make the circuit of the general assemblies. Those are probably the only people who, if they do wind up moving, would make the effort to find a CBF church to attend.

The move away from denominational identity seems to be across denominational lines. Timothy, even the Methodists are affected by it. When we first moved here, one of our neighbors invited us to her church, identifying it as "Dutihl Church." We'd seen it, on Dutihl Rd., nice building. Because of my background, I noticed, as we were walking through the door, the logo on the foyer wall was the only indication at all that the church was United Methodist. Well, they also had the United Methodist Hymnal in the pew racks, but we never touched one, since the service was contemporary.

[Tim Bonney]

[Cathy]

I've been reading church bylaws recently as friends are looking to replace the bylaws just adopted in May 2015 at their church.

I have noticed mention of association with both the SBC and CBF in some bylaws. I've also noticed some mention of only the SBC but use the 1963 Faith statement. This is funny to me. I imagine a sort of tortured effort to please a number of SBC loyalists in a church that does not on the whole align with the SBC. Our church in Dallas had a series of meetings leading up to a vote not to accept the 2000 Faith and Message statement. These were relatively small groups with discussion. There was really no significant opposition to rejecting the 2000 document. They removed the Fort Worth Seminary from their budget. And yet probably 10 years later some members still described the church as SBC. It was my understanding that the church actually only acknowledged the state convention and had a check box on the Christmas mission envelope so that you chose what international missions organizations you wanted to support.

Another thing I have seen is membership appearing to require alignment with a faith statement and church covenant. Whereas some bylaws have a very simple faith and practice statement associated with membership. This statement being about two lines on the page.

[Tim Bonney]

Cathy,

Church bylaws can be a mess. One church I pastored had a faith statement that no one had read for years that actually contradicted the basic views of both the congregation and the ABC/USA. No one remembered how it got in the bylaws. But the statement got changed by a committee while I was there.

Also we noticed the bylaws had no provision for protecting the church from a hostile takeover. This was a church that ran 150 on Sunday and usually had about 30 people show up for a business meeting. The bylaws made no mention of needing anything more than a simple majority for any decision. So someone on many meetings could have show up with 16 members in a conspiracy and taken the church right out of the ABC or sold the property or whatever.

That was also changed so that major changes like denominational affiliation, sale of property etc. required larger attendance and a larger majority.

One of the advantages of connectional denominations is that each church doesn't have to reinvent the wheel and create all their own bylaws. (Of course that's the disadvantage too if you really want absolute local control.)

[Sandy]

[Cathy]

Tim, the church I spoke about (presently suffering under a new bad set of bylaws) is likely to go through a split of a sort soon. The bylaws were however amended to prevent removing the church from the denomination by unanimous vote in the midst of a controversy that could see the church lose a third of their member.

Sandy, I think it is quite reasonable to maintain a dual alignment. Many are attached to a name and tradition. Even within the families in the church there can be differences. While I was a member of a dually aligned church there were never really any significant concerns about affiliation. But I agree with you that having a more coherent alignment is probably better for a church in the long run.

Calvinism creeping into more and more Sunday School classes was a larger concern than whether members considered themselves SBC, Texas Baptist, or CBF.

I don't see that there is anything inconsistent with ABC and CBF dual alignment.

[Tim Bonney]

OK, I'm confused Cathy. Are you saying that the church can't vote itself out even with a 100% vote of all that are present and voting of 1/3 of the membership threatened to leave? And why would they leave if the vote were 100%? Basically that give people who were not at the business meeting (I'm guessing) veto over the business of the church.

Or am I misunderstanding the bylaw?

[Cathy]

Given that the problems in the church include pending if not current insolvency, it was felt that everyone would be more comfortable if the church property would remain in the denomination that it had been affiliated with for 148 years. So an amendment was made to the bylaws last month that would transfer the property to the denomination in case of insolvency or a split of the church. After some changes a motion to that affect passed. The original motion said that all the non real property would be sold first. Then it was changed so that it at least did not suggest that the non real property should be sold. Although three board members said they had the right to sell things without the OK of the congregation.

I don't expect such harmony in votes to come and since those votes would require a two thirds majority the majority could indeed be disappointed in the outcome.

[Tim Bonney]

[Cathy]

I agree with you but it settles things for the moment. A regional denominational representative will come to the church and moderate a meeting on Jan 10th.

[Tim Bonney]

[Lamar Wadsworth]

At Heritage Baptist in Cartersville GA, our CBF and Alliance of Baptists is clearly indicated on the sign at the entrance to the parking lot. The decision of which Bible translation to use is left up to the people doing the scripture readings on a given Sunday.

[William Thornton]

It's always good to hear from Lamar.

I've never been in an SBC church that specified a particular Bible version or translation and wonder why that comes up here so much.

I attend a church plant (now 6-7 years old) that is solidly SBC but doesn't advertise it. I sometimes wonder if this business of presenting your church as generic is all that much of an advantage.

[Cathy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

Both Barna and Stetzer have some pretty comprehensive data on this particular subject. I believe the largest Southern Baptist church in the US at the present time is Saddleback Valley Community Church in Mission Viejo, California. I'd be curious to know the level of awareness of Southern Baptist identity there is among the membership there, and whether or not a more visible Southern Baptist identity would have hindered their growth in a community made up mostly of transplanted Gen X'ers and Millenials who are racially and ethnically diverse and highly prosperous. Of course, they draw from well beyond the boundaries of their municipality. On the other hand, you have Prestonwood Baptist Church in the Dallas suburbs, where the growth is the direct result of transfer of membership from other Southern Baptist churches in the area, who either can't compete with the program smorgasbord that is offered, or who have moved out to the suburbs from elsewhere. Willow Creek, in the Chicago area, thrives on a non-denominational identity. I've been to church growth and small groups conferences there where the staff very clearly points to this as being a key factor. The area of the suburbs where they are located is a "church desert," where few smaller, local congregations of any kind still remain. The mega churches in Houston, Second and First Baptist, depend heavily on their SBC identity. The largest United Methodist church in Houston is also a mega, First, and has gone to the satellite campus plan as well. I don't know how United Methodists feel about that, but when we left Houston in 2010, they had counted about 10 disbanded churches in the area of FUMC's west campus.

I'd be curious to hear, Cathy, how you'd distinguish a CBF congregation from an SBC one, or what some specific factors related to church identity that exist in CBF churches in particular. I've always thought that one of the bigger problems facing CBF, aside from the fence riding over whether to even be a denomination or not, and the relative inability most of its supporting churches have in shaking loose from their SBC ties, is an identity. Is is avoiding the use of the term "inerrancy", while at the same time supporting the BFM 1963, which has a statement declaring belief in inerrancy? Is is believing that women can be ordained by the local church, though the vast majority don't ordain women? I've asked these questions since the 90's, and I think that the lack of a clear, comprehensive answer to them is the reason why CBF struggles, and seems to be leaking in terms of church and financial support.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, please find the term "inerrancy" for me in the 1963 BFM?

[Sandy]