Latest News on CBF Listening Sessions

[Gene Scarborough]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7174/53/

DECATUR, Ga. (ABP) – The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Coordinating Council affirmed the 2012 Task Force report Feb. 24, pending adjustments from listening sessions the previous day that will be resubmitted for final approval by e-mail.

A timeline calls for more work on areas identified in 20 pages of feedback notes from a Feb. 23 gathering of past and current CBF leaders and partners, with revisions submitted to the Coordinating Council by April 15. Coordinating Council members will then have two weeks to consider the new wording in committees through conference calls or online discussions and vote electronically May 1. After that the final report would be made available for public consideration no later than 30 days prior to the CBF General Assembly June 20-23 in Fort Worth, Texas.

I see this as a good report / filled with cooperation / living within the financial means at present!

Second report: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7175/53/

Vestal called the CBF mission “to serve Christians and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given mission” a “really beautiful statement,” because it focuses on the local church.

“The center of the Baptist family is the local church,” Vestal said. “The idea is not that individuals and churches serve CBF in fulfilling our mission, but we exist to strengthen and extend the mission of every local church. That’s very important.”

One of the Fellowship’s core values, Vestal said, is “biblically based” global missions.

[Dave Roberts]

I think the reports are good. Part of the struggle of CBF is finding ways to be creative in the 21st century without trying to replicate the 20th. The ways to build cooperation are going to require new thinking. Decentralization will be what is likely to work, and I see the SBC trying to move in the opposite direction as NAMB tries to cut ties of partnership with state bodies to do its own church planting initiative. I think we are living in what may prove a pivotal century in Baptist life.

[Gene Scarborough]

I wonder if anyone will chime in saying the SBC is still better?

They are in a major budget crisis to the point they backed away from the name change with the cost involved.

[Timothy Bonney]

I think the reports are good. Part of the struggle of CBF is finding ways to be creative in the 21st century without trying to replicate the 20th. The ways to build cooperation are going to require new thinking. Decentralization will be what is likely to work, and I see the SBC trying to move in the opposite direction as NAMB tries to cut ties of partnership with state bodies to do its own church planting initiative. I think we are living in what may prove a pivotal century in Baptist life.

I don't know Dave. I've seen the ABC/USA basically "decentralizing" over the last fifteen years or so and I personally think it has hurt the denomination. ABC Regions in some places have become little fiefdoms of a strong Executive Minister, theology has become regionalized rather than nationalized so that you have regions that cater to liberals or conservatives, and the national staff just gets smaller and smaller as a result of a lack of support of the national budget. Those regions with weak leadership founder in other ways without a more centralized core.

And it happens on the regional level too. Regions cut staff to make budget, churches see region staff members less and less in their churches because of it, so they decide the region doesn't care about them so they then cut their giving causing the region to then cut more staff members and creating a merry go round of reduced giving, staff cutting, reduced giving etc.

I think the CBFs purposefully loose organizational structure may be both what attracted moderate Baptist churches to it and what now is causing the fellowship such headaches. Weak leadership sounds good when you don't want someone telling you what to do. But when you need leadership it is a disaster.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Thank you Gene for bringing these items to my attention:

I tried to post a comment in ABP's comment section but it will not recognize my registration I see that one of our BL.C regulars did get in.

Here is what I wanted to post there in response to the op-ed by our CBF moderator;

Since there are those who seem not to understand or appreciate the current policy, I see no problem with further discussion. I am disappointed to hear that Colleen, whom I greatly admire, finds it to be divisive, "unenforceable and probably not Baptist". I do not find the current policy to be either unenforceable nor un-Baptistic. As to divisive I expect the church I attend and the Christian organizations with which it affiliates to be separate from the world. We are called to change the world not vice-versa.

I do believe the Church needs to minister to homosexuals as much so as any one else but not on their terms exclusively. We have had long and contentious discussions of the topic on the Baptistlife.com website for many years, and my position has not changed. Some reading this know that I am in the ABC-USA,
which essentially has no formal policy regarding homosexuality, and I can tell you that not having a clear policy is divisive.

Ed Pettibone

And TIm I am not sure you mean what you say with "Weak leadership sounds good when you don't want someone telling you what to do. But when you need leadership it is a disaster".
CBF has never had weak leadership. We have not advocated weak leadership, but have demanded and have had servant leadership, which has served us well.

[Gene Scarborough]

I'm glad you brought up the homosexual issue alongside the other inclusive outlooks of CBF.

I totally agree with the divisive nature of it, but would hope the attitude of cooperation over coersion might rule. That was the foundation of SBC growth and cooperation in the past. When that went, the growth stopped and fighting took over. Escrowed funds for hard times carried it through to now, but the reality of lesser cooperation and giving to a forced conformity along with the "Great Recession" is making them show their weakness financially.

In NC, there is now a Financial Policy which precludes any church ministering to homosexuals from having their gifts accepted. The Executive Committee passes judgement on what "ministering to homosexuals" means. Now they are after churches calling a female as pastor.

It seems the opportunities for fussing and fighting are endless. When we were a less informed-by-the-media country we sort of used local news as the source for issues. Now it quickly gets national attention and some "law" to rule us into a pretended conformity. If America is a truely free society, then we have to allow for individual respect even if people do not do as we want all the time. We certainly still need to respect privacy and what a household does in their own home.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed I have to agree with you that not having a clear policy on homosexuality is divisive. However, having a clear policy doesn't necessarily bring unity either. The UMC has a clear policy which, by my count at Annual Conference in Iowa, about half the voting members of Conference disagree with. So what do you do with a clear policy that barely the majority agrees with? In the UMC's case you follow the policy in the Discipline until such a time as the majority view of the delegates of the General Conference changes and they vote in a different policy.

But I don't know what good a policy (clear or not) does for the CBF since it is unenforceable outside of the CBF office anyway.

[Gene Scarborough]

We might note the way the Roman Catholic Church does their business. Some years back in the rise of the Charismatic Movement so offensive to the RCC way of formality and control, they allowed for the "Catholic Charismatic Movement" as long as they sent money to Rome.

They value money over conformity and have always started a new branch as long as they don't openly criticize the Pope and send their gold!

[Timothy Bonney]

They value money over conformity and have always started a new branch as long as they don't openly criticize the Pope and send their gold!

I think that is a bit unfair here Gene. I think that in some ways the Roman Catholic Church allows for more diversity than Protestant churches do theologically because they view themselves as The Church (the place for everyone) and not a subset of the church to splinter off and do your own thing. Remember denominations was a Protestant idea and not a Catholic idea.

Now the RCC has plenty of its own problems and I'm no fan of the current Pontiff. But then, I know quite a few Roman Catholics who would welcome a change in leadership in Rome as well.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Why can we not have a discussion about CBF without comparing ourselves to that Baptist group based in Nashville, the UMC, Catholics or any other purportedly christian organization with which we have no formal ties.

BTW, I am starting a new thread with this same question.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Why can we not have a discussion about CBF without comparing ourselves to that Baptist group based in Nashville, the UMC, Catholics or any other purportedly christian organization with which we have no formal ties.

BTW, I am starting a new thread with this same question.

So you are saying that you want to have a discussion without any comparative references? Why, because the comparisons are accurate and mess up your discussion? Also you left out the ABC. So can I compare the CBF to the ABC or is that off limits to?

And why the insulting term "purportedly?" Would you appreciate it if I referred to the CBF as that "purportedly" non-denominational fellowship? Pull back in the claws Ed. LOL

[Timothy Bonney]

Gene started this thread but apparently Ed has declared himself "ruler of discussion flow" here so I'll discuss the Cooperative Baptist purported Fellowship without any reference to any other purported Christians for just a minute.

The CBF is a fellowship and not a denomination. The CBF is made up of churches and individuals that contribute to it. The CBF has and claims no authority for itself to over doctrine for its members nor does it have a creed or confession of faith of its own. The CBF does not seek to require its members to subscribe to a statement of faith yet, the CBF national body has an official position on homosexuality. Anyone else see a flaw in this? (Please don't reference any other purported Christian that is not part of the purported CBF and please don't requote my post in your response since I'm not a Baptist but a Methodist who is purported to be a Christian, other wise you'll tick off Ed)

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim please wait a bit and see my reply in the other thread. This is not about you myself or any individual.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Tim please wait a bit and see my reply in the other thread. This is not about you myself or any individual.

I'll look for it Ed. But it seems you want to avoid comparisons which might actually tell you if a clear policy will work or not. Without comparing the CBF policy to other Christian organizations which have a policy (clear or not) what can you talk about which would give you any idea if a change in policy would help or not?

You are usually a persons who demands evidence on this forum. Since the CBF has the policy it has and there isn't another CBF policy to compare it to then without making comparisons there will be no evidence.

Second, yes this is about you some what. You are attempting to control the discusion by determining what parameters each of us must use in making our own point. Well guess what, I can't imagine anyone is going to agree to discussion on those terms.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim please wait a bit and see my reply in the other thread. This is not about you myself or any individual.

I'll look for it Ed. But it seems you want to avoid comparisons which might actually tell you if a clear policy will work or not. Without comparing the CBF policy to other Christian organizations which have a policy (clear or not) what can you talk about which would give you any idea if a change in policy would help or not?

You are usually a persons who demands evidence on this forum. Since the CBF has the policy it has and there isn't another CBF policy to compare it to then without making comparisons there will be no evidence.

Second, yes this is about you some what. You are attempting to control the discusion by determining what parameters each of us must use in making our own point. Well guess what, I can't imagine anyone is going to agree to discussion on those terms.

Ed: TIm see the new thread for my reply

[Dave Roberts]

While the CBF structure is somewhat loose by definition, I hope there will be a move to find the next leader with more of the personality of Cecil Sherman than Dan Vestal. I consider Dan a friend and an excellent administrator, but I am convinced that CBF needs a visionary leader to implement some of the strategies. Indeed, it may require someone who stands in the gaps and makes noise to bring CBF to its next level. We don't need a authoritarian micromanager, but we need a visionary who can draw others into a compelling vision for the future.

[Gene Scarborough]

In the second noted link at the beginning is more of what Vestal describes of CBF details:

“CBF does not have a creed, but there is a confessional portion of that core value -- a brief but I think very important confessional statement -- that we believe in the triune God, that we believe all people are separated from God by their sin and that Christ is the savior of all peoples,” he said. “If you listen carefully and pay attention, that confessional statement has real integrity. It has content. It confesses some shared convictions, some shared commitments. Perhaps not now as in times past we’ve been accused of a lot of things: What do you all really believe? Who are you as a Fellowship? I have used that particular portion of our core value identity statement many times. We disagree about many things, but that is a core commitment.”

Another is “Baptist principles” articulated as “soul freedom,” “Bible freedom,” “church freedom,” and “religious freedom.”

[Ed Pettibone]

While the CBF structure is somewhat loose by definition, I hope there will be a move to find the next leader with more of the personality of Cecil Sherman than Dan Vestal. I consider Dan a friend and an excellent administrator, but I am convinced that CBF needs a visionary leader to implement some of the strategies. Indeed, it may require someone who stands in the gaps and makes noise to bring CBF to its next level. We don't need a authoritarian micromanager, but we need a visionary who can draw others into a compelling vision for the future.

Ed: Dave with Trudy and I having had a few one on one, and one on two conversations with Danial , I respectfully believe you greatly under estimate his strength as a Visionary. And that does not mean that he and I have always agreed on every thing.

And thanks to Gene for what serves as a good reply to Tim B's assertion that CBF's current personnel policy is creedal.

[Timothy Bonney]

And thanks to Gene for what serves as a good reply to Tim B's assertion that CBF's current personnel policy is creedal.

It doesn't get it for me. I think Vestal is dancing around the fact that on one hand the CBF proclaims certain views of "church freedom" but then apparently has a set of "core confessional beliefs." I find that confusing at least.

[Gene Scarborough]

Tim---

That's why you enjoy Methodism: It is clearcut and has a policy on everything. Ministers can just say, "I must consult with the DS on that one." Then the DS can consult to the higher level up the line. I see nothing wrong with that. It gives a certain comfort and discipline and avoids all the craziness of Baptists!

The beauty of Baptists, for me, has been Autonomy.

That was one of the things Vestal was citing. When it worked the SBC became the largest Protestant Demonimation in the world. Second only to Roman Catholics in size for all of christiandom.

Here is a strange conundrum: How can you get along when you don't have control of polity and a chain of command?

[Timothy Bonney]

The beauty of Baptists, for me, has been Autonomy.

I agree it is the hallmark of Baptist polity. When I realized I no longer supported the idea is when I knew I wasn't a Baptist any more.

What I see with the policy on homosexuality with the CBF is that this is one of those cases when Baptists want to have their cake and eat it too. There is really no way for the national body to have a policy that will please all the churches. The policy is only enforcable in relationship to the very small staff controlled by the CBF national office. So having an official policy on homosexuality has its greatest impact in the CBF's missional spending decisions. And whatever their policy they may cost themselves mission funding from churches who don't like the policy they adopted because they will see that as interferring with their local autonomy. So as I see it for the CBF having an official position on side issue like this simply sets the Fellowship up criticism from both sides.

[Gene Scarborough]

In other words: Maybe CBF does not need a "policy" on everything and leave it to the local church to minister?

I like that!!!

[Timothy Bonney]

In other words: Maybe CBF does not need a "policy" on everything and leave it to the local church to minister?

I like that!!!

If I were still a Baptist I'd probably say so.

My personal opinion is you either have to do it one way or another. If you want an official statement with any teeth to it then you have to have binding church law or if you want totally autonomous churches you have to admit that there can be no "official" statement. I don't think you can have both.

Now if you want a statement on paper that no one has to follow but that you can get together every so often and get spitting mad and fight about it, you can do that in any structure.

[Gene Scarborough]

So agreed---and so well said!!!

[KeithE]

In other words: Maybe CBF does not need a "policy" on everything and leave it to the local church to minister?

I like that!!!

If I were still a Baptist I'd probably say so.

My personal opinion is you either have to do it one way or another. If you want an official statement with any teeth to it then you have to have binding church law or if you want totally autonomous churches you have to admit that there can be no "official" statement. I don't think you can have both.

Now if you want a statement on paper that no one has to follow but that you can get together every so often and get spitting mad and fight about it, you can do that in any structure.

I nominate this (especially the statement in red) for a Golden Spur.