by mlovell » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:10 pm
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!)