BL.com at CBF Assembly

[Michael]

[Michael]

Tonight's concluding worship had a focus on missions - 19 new CBF missionaries going everywhere from North Carolina to South Africa. Daniel Vestal, who's been less in front of things this year, gave a stirring sermon on being the presence of Christ and......

HE GAVE AN INVITATION...for persons to respond to Christ's call in their lives whatever that might mean. A group of pastors were up front and I gather there was some response. (Of course, being a traditional Baptist, I was in the back! )

I'll add more tomorrow about the most interesting thing I heard at the Assembly.

Most CBFers will be cleared out of here by tomorrow morning. I'll be here till Sunday; cheaper to stay overnight on Saturday and fly back Sunday.

Lots of peopole are coming into this place for 4th of July festivities. I guess the bar will be back in business tomorrow afternoon.

[David Flick]

Thanks for the reports, Michael. Sounds like the CBF group is doing fine. I look forward to further posts regarding the CBF.

Speaking of invitations, Dr. Roy Medley (the ABC General Secretary) also gave an invitation. He gave one tonight after a really great sermon. Many responded to the invitation to pray for the denomination in these troublesome times.

We are having some controversy wherein some of the conservatives are threatening to pull out of the denomination if they don't get their way. We're having a crucial vote on the controversy tomorrow afternoon (Saturday). I'll report on it when I get home. I request prayer for the ABC from the BaptistLife family.

[Michael]

Saturday morning in Grapevine; a series of rain showers cooled things off a bit around sunrise but it's heading toward 100 later today.

A few more observations from the CBF Assembly….

The most enjoyable part of the Assembly was the workshop on The Emerging Church. It was led by Greg Warner of ABP fame. Two interesting ideas from that session: 1) “God is not obligated to preserve our traditional church cultures.” 2) Our culture has changed drastically in the past 20 years; changes in ethnic makeup and traditions, the immediacy brought by technology, etc.; Warner shared that we can divide up our population into “immigrants” and “natives”; immigrants have to learn to deal with a new culture – those ages 35 and up are the immigrants in today’s society; natives have been brought up in that culture and it’s “home” for them – those under 35 years of age are natives. This helped me to understand why I sometimes feel a bit out of sorts with the changes going on around me even as I try to adapt. It was an excellent presentation and dialogue. An 83-year old gentleman was there with a genuine interest in understanding and helping the church effectively minister.

Finally, this is my third General Assembly. I heard no “anti-SBC” rhetoric; it was about CBF and its mission. I was pleased to see that.

[Rock]

[Michael]

[mlovell]

Former CBF Constitution:
Article II. Purpose. The purpose of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (hereinafter, "the Fellowship") is to bring together Baptists who desire to call out God's gifts in each person in order that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be spread throughout the world in glad obedience to the Great Commission. The Fellowship is committed to the preservation and propagation of individual and historic Baptist freedoms and distinctives, including the priesthood of all believers, the acceptance of the authority of the Bible without the aid of creeds, the autonomy of each church, and the separation of church and state in the interests of religious liberty.

Amended CBF Constitution:
Article II. Purpose. The purpose of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (hereinafter, "the Fellowship") is to serve Christians and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given mission. The Fellowship shall fulfill its purpose in keeping with its commitments to the historic Baptist principles of soul freedom, Bible freedom, church freedom, and religious freedon; to biblically-based global missions; to a resource model for serving churches; to justice and reconciliation; to lifelong learning and ministry; to trustworthiness; and to effectiveness.

Michael is right in saying that the primary reason giving for changing the purpose statement was "to bring the purpose statement in the constitution in line with the purpose statement of CBF as it has been adapted in other documentation." I'd probably quibble with "adapted in other documentation" -- because what they said was to bring it into agreement with the purpose statement of CBF being used on virtually every piece of printed material sent out from CBF, its "publicized" mission statement. No one said where "that" purpose statement came from, when it was adopted, etc.

Those who wanted the purpose statement changed (to include the first sentence in the former purpose statement) voiced their belief that it would be a significant mistake to omit "the gospel of Jesus Christ" from the purpose statement, and that "glad obedience to the Great Commission" was another important clause which should be retained.

One who defended the proposed change said that "Jesus Christ" is implicit in the new statement. (Clearly, those voting against it prefer explicit statements about Jesus.) Another (who'd been on the committee which proposed the changes) defended the change on the general basis that "We worked long and hard on that, you all apparently don't grasp what we were trying to do" -- general attitude of "Who are you to want to change our work?" Bear in mind that this was the only change requested in what was virtually a rewrite of the entire document -- 13 pages of two-columns paralleling the existing constitution and the proposed changes. A motion was made to approve everything except that purpose statement, but neither a recognition of the inherent problem with the changed statement nor a desire to work with the large number of people who wanted the change was present.

Both votes were standing votes, and in both cases the president ruled that the motion for change had failed. He was on the platform and I have no reason to doubt his integrity -- but from where I was (on the main floor, not as good a vantage point) it looked mighty close. In my view there should have been a written vote so that everyone, on both sides, would know what it was.

It appears that those who opposed the change not only wanted Jesus Christ mentioned explicitly in the purpose statement, they were also far more aware of the publicity consequences of eliminating that then the "We've worked on this a long time, you all just don't understand" committee members were.

P.S. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting and chatting with Michael, laying eyes on Deb for the first time, visiting with Bruce and Alan Roper and Wilkey again. I had a cold I thought was bad when we arrived at the hotel, but it got worse -- and I finally went to bed at noon Friday, missed the afternoon workshops and the evening missions service, and we came home this morning. My eyes and nose are still running so prolifically that it's a battle to get ready to teach tomorrow -- and there's no one available to substitute for me. (AND I seem to have mislaid my Oral Roberts anointed prayer cloth!)

[mlovell]

[Michael]

[mlovell]

[Rock]

[mlovell]

The committee had the opportunity to do that when the concern was presented at the Business Workshop on Proposed Constitution and Bylaws Revision. The committee chose not to pull back that one article, and went forward with the whole thing.

Again, the committee -- TWICE -- had the opportunity to recognize the concerns of the significant number of those who disagreed with the proposed change at the Friday morning session. The committee chose not to.

What I very much want to know is the origin and provenance of the statement being used by CBF which the committee wanted the purpose statement to parallel. Haven't found anything about that. If you do, please let me know.

I suppose that someone could propose a change in Atlanta -- after they'd submitted the proposed change in writing to the CoordCouncil 30 days prior to the CoordCouncil meeting which precedes the Assembly, and if they make the proposed change available to those attending the GA at a business meeting prior to voting on the amendment. There's nothing in the Constitution saying the CoordCouncil has to approve the proposed amendment -- just that they have to receive it 30 days before their meeting preceding the GA. Doesn't sound too arduous, does it?

I hope the brother (Jay Robinson, Lexington, KY -- maybe Jonathan knows him?) does it. And it does take 2/3 of "those present and voting" to amend. My view -- there's a year to tell the story to CBF folks who weren't there, and to those who were and voted not to amend -- with the BP story illustrating the fact that Baptists don't look for implicit meaning, but for explicit statements.

I didn't write clearly above. (Said I was sick, didn't I?) I meant that I have no reason to think the chair's ruling was anything but accurate -- but the numbers were very close, I think. (And if they weren't as close as I think they were, I'd like to know that. As it is, no one knows anything other than a judgment call.)

My take -- which may be inaccurate -- on the statements from the committee members was that they rather resented having their proposal questioned, were unwilling to think something else in one article, proposed by someone not on the committee, might be better. Those statements were uncomfortably reminiscent of statements I've heard from other committees in days past -- particularly the "nitpicking" remark -- which, to be honest, even the guy who made it heard as he made it, and almost immediately corrected himself, saying something like, "I shouldn't say that." His take -- "You must look at the whole document to get the sense of it" -- ignores the fact that Jesus Christ and the Gospel were excised from the purpose statement of CBF.

In fact, I find no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution/Bylaws. Why would the committee think total omission is a good thing, and expect people to discover an "implicit reference" to him? Why insist on deleting the explicit reference to him?

The BP story is indeed all those who voted to accept the proposed changes deserve. Those of us who voted not to accept it deserve better, IMO. I'm about to grow weary of all Baptist groups -- mostly because of the tone (as I perceived it) of the committee statements. Guess it's fair to say I heard what was implicit in their words. (If you want those who read written documents to perceive what's implicitly there, you shouldn't be surprised if those same people focus on what's implicit in your oral statements as well.)

[Mark]

[Haruo]

Sounds like Tatian's Diatessaron is alive and well in modern Baptistry*

Haruo

* I'm using this term by analogy to "Jewry"; which reminds me there's a place here in Seattle (and elsewhere?) called "The Jewelry Exchange", and their advertising narrators pronounce it "Jewry Exchange", which makes for odd noises coming out of the radio like "The Jewry Exchange makes and sells all its own jewry."

[deb]

Well, we finally rolled in about 6 p.m. so I am late in responding to this thread...

Did anyone who was there see/experience any of the "extras" at the Gaylord? The butterfly garden? The alligator in the pond? The miniature trains? The snake exhibit?

Michael, sorry I didn't get to meet you. I did have other lunch plans, but it turned out that they were delayed by about 45 minutes...I should have just gone down to the cafe but I then became engrossed in conversation with an old friend and didn't think about it again. My loss.
Wilkey, Prescott said you were everywhere, but I guess w/o your "skin and hat" that I just didn't recognize you.
Seemed nearly every time I turned around I saw Alan R
Ran into Rob, but have to admit I wasn't particularly happy with ABP when I first saw him and I didn't greet him appropriately. Sorry.
Bruce G. and I visited a couple of times and it was during this visit that I met Bill and then he helped to hook me up with Marilyn!! Hooray!! I was so pleased to have finally been able to share a hug from someone who seems like an old friend!

Other things to discuss... I very much enjoyed 2 of the breakouts I went to. One ended up being cancelled and so I visited with my pastor instead. That was OK too! One session wasn't exactly what I thought it would be but it was still ok. This was my husband's first real assembly (he was sick the one year he went and spent 85% of the time feeling miserable in the hotel room) and he very much enjoyed every bit of it. From the breakouts he attended (different from mine) to the worship experiences.

On to the Article II breakout...
Where I was seated, there were several who voted to have the article reconsidered. I didn't look back, just to the front and sides and indeed it was a close call. I agree with what ML said, I didn't have the same vantage point at Setzer. However, my husband and I both voted to ask the committee to reconsider the article. I would have loved to have seen Jesus Christ mentioned and I also very much knew that certain others would jump all over that ommission.

If someone is going to "read your statement" they aren't going to read the whole document. They will begin reading it and after several paragraphs of droning they will begin to skim it. If they skim it, they will not have a full understanding of it and from that I cannot assume that they will know assuredly that the document is referring to Christians who also believe strongly in the Great Commission.

Mark, as far as Ml reconsidering and saying that "some" on the committee...well, we only heard from those that were on the committee and it would be an easy assumption that the rest of the committee knew in advance that this issue would come up and that perhaps they had decided among themselves who would address the issue. I wonder if in fact someone would could have spoken for the change who was not on the committee? It did also appear that no real reason was given except that a lot of work had been put into the document. Honestly, just because a lot of work goes into something doesn't mean it's good. One cannot always equate the two.

I would prefer that we would not have set ourselves (CBF) up for an attack. It's sad enough to do something without thinking about the ramifications, but why do something that will purposefully draw attention to your actions in a negative way? Why give anyone real fuel when they already are so good at making things up?

As another has stated, I believe a written vote with everyone being given the results would have been better. My husband and I discussed that at that very time. And also, if it was that close, I believe that the committee should have volunteered to take it back to committee and revisit the entire article. It would have just been good PR if nothing else. To show the people that you represent that you have confidence in them would have been a far more positive thing rather than admitting that although a close vote that the revisions stand.

[Tony]

[mlovell]

[Dave Roberts]

[mlovell]

[Sandy]

[Mark]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]