by Sandy » Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:22 pm
I've read A Hill on Which to Die. I've also read several from the moderate perspective. Aside from Grady Cothen's first book on the subject, most of the writers emphasize their own perspective as being "closest" to being true, blue SBC, and focus on the extremes of the other side that make them look out of step and different.
The only real difference that I've observed, and I've been involved in churches and ministries set from both perspectives, is that CBF was initially distinguished from the SBC by its opposition to the personalities who came into SBC leadership. That's really about it. In recent years, seeing the need for some specific distinguishing features, CBF has pulled itself in the direction of increasing the involvement of women in ministry, and more recently, in being more gay and lesbian friendly. I'm not sure how well that is being received, or accepted, in its churches. Clearly some of their churches were moving in that direction, and were already distinguished from the SBC in that regard even prior to 1979, but not many. The excuse given for not considering a woman in the moderate church I once belonged to was, "We need someone with a whole lot more experience than the few women who showed an interest in our pulpit." If the record of CBF affiliated churches calling women as pastors is an indication, they are not very much different from the SBC in that regard. I know several women who I went to seminary with, or whom I've worked with, who have been waiting to be called to a CBF church for any kind of ministry for two decades now. One friend recently was called to a church I served back in the 90's as their worship leader. It's SBC, though, not CBF.
On the other side of the coin, I think a lot of the characterization here of Southern Baptists is an emphasis on the extremes. Keeping in mind that Southern Baptists are still a denomination of independent, autonomous churches, what "Southern Baptists" believe is still much more a matter of local church autonomy than it is denominational declaration. Whether the denomination put forth a statement or not, fact is, few SBC churches would call a female pastor out of conviction because of the way they interpret the scripture. That doesn't equate to demeaning women, though. Yeah, because of its geographic base, you'll find churches where "wifely submission" is a byword, and where most of the Bibles are black leather KJV's that have endured plenty of thumping. But I'd say those are not numerous enough to characterize the whole denomination. I've served five on staff, either bi-vocationally or full time, and I've never been in one like that. I've also never been in one where the bulk of the ministry leadership and work didn't involve a majority of women, none of whom resented not being "ordained" or saw the lack of such as some kind of put down. I even served one where I worked with a committee which went through the church membership roll and actually "cleaned house," in order to have something that was useful. I've observed very little difference in the culture of CBF-supporting congregations as opposed to SBC churches. They're cut from the same cloth.
Like all denominations, the SBC is headed for some bumps in the road. In another decade, most Protestant American Christians will attend a church that has no denominational label or affiliation. But I agree with William's assessment. What distinguishes CBF that can be relied upon to support and sustain its existence in 30 or 50 years? The SBC will be around, smaller, but still here, and still very likely the largest Protestant denomination in America in 50 years. Where will CBF be, given the record of declining contributions of the past decade?