Making practical sense of the Sexuality conference

[Dave Roberts]

I didn't say we determine morality on the basis of general support.

But we can look at numbers to determine where people stand on something, can we not?

We're not the SBC. We don't get motions from the floor and opportunities to adopt resolutions, etc. IMO our structure itself makes determining where CBFers stand on an issue rather difficult. So looking at numbers can be helpful.

Also, if a person doesn't give to the ministries of the CBF with their tithes, in what sense is that person a CBFer? CBF is not a church. It claims to be not a denomination too. I've never given a dollar to the Baptist Peace Fellowship. Consequently, I don't consider myself as a part of the Baptist Peace Fellowship. I support CBF missions though.

That is a good explanation. I don't agree with everything that every other CBF'er may do or church may do, but I'm given the freedom not to be in lockstep with them. It's a good freedom to have. I don't expect everyone in CBF to agree with me on sexual issues. I'm more conservative than some, not as conservative as others. At least we can have dialogue on what the future holds. What I sense now after two conversations with folks who were in Atlanta is that the conference there was only the beginning of a discussion. There are many more dialogues that will be needed, and the hiring policy of CBF is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. In fact, it may be the least important one. What happens in local churches is far more critical to the future.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think it becomes a sad day when morality = money!

If that were true with Jesus, he would have run away from the impending cross. He certainly didn't have the backing of the rich nor the Temple.

Anyone turning the Church of Jesus Christ into a "glorified social club" risks God's judgement. In Nazi Germany morality = money brought the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals.

The real question is over how moral and in line with God's way shown through Christ is any major decision. Us humans tend to a gradual down slope so our consciences hurt us little. Enough of that can led you straight to hell given enough time and rationalization.

I agree with Dave that the right to make our own decisions outside any group official decision give enough breadth to organized religion so that all is not lost over the decisions of a few.

[Sandy]

It is very important to consider who makes up CBF, and who is supporting it financially to determine how policy decisions related to issues like this are made.

CBF was formed by Southern Baptists, many of whom had been high profile leaders prior to 1979, and who were generally opposed to the conservative leaders who were being elected and nominated to replace the old guard. Being opposed to the conservative resurgence does not necessarily translate directly into holding a more liberal, progressive theological perspective. The fact is that the main difference was over where to draw the lines with regard to missions cooperation, not over whether the Bible was inerrant and infallible. It isn't likely that anyone would have been able to hold a leadership position in the SBC, even prior to 1979, without open acceptance of the 1963 BFM, which clearly states the belief in a Bible that is "truth without any mixture of error."

The Alliance of Baptists represents most of the former SBC congregations that would be liberal and progressive enough to have the "welcoming and affirming" label which would go so far as to allow for hiring individuals living in an openly gay relationship. The Alliance has about 100 churches, of which fewer than 30 are also supporting CBF. On the other hand, about 90% of CBF's partnering churches still support the Cooperative Program of the SBC. CBF's leaders, for the most part, seem to be pretty happy with their position of cooperating with other Baptists, even though they disagree with their position on homosexuality, but they themselves are not going to ordain or call gays or lesbians to vocational ministry. It's pretty clear that most of them aren't going to call women as pastors, either.

The argument about having to hold certain conservative theological positions to satisfy Texas Baptists who tend to be more conservative does not hold water. There are few CBF churches anywhere that are "welcoming and affirming" and few that would be persuaded to move CBF in a direction toward changing its hiring policy. CBF doesn't restrict its more progressive churches from doing as they please with regard to their vocational ministers and employees. Why are they insisting that CBF change its policy to be more in line with them?

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy says:

There are few CBF churches anywhere that are "welcoming and affirming" and few that would be persuaded to move CBF in a direction toward changing its hiring policy. CBF doesn't restrict its more progressive churches from doing as they please with regard to their vocational ministers and employees. Why are they insisting that CBF change its policy to be more in line with them?

You missed the spirt of CBF, my brother. It is open to discussing some new ideas and progressive discoveries.

The basic difference between CBF and SBC is that such discussions will never take place in the SBC!

Because the CBF is focusing on COOPERATION it is not necessary to have a lock-step conformity now demanded in the SBC.

"Viva la diffrence!!!"

[Dave Roberts]

On the other hand, about 90% of CBF's partnering churches still support the Cooperative Program of the SBC.

Sandy, I would like to know the documentation for that statistic. Could you share your source?

[Ed Pettibone]

I didn't say we determine morality on the basis of general support.

But we can look at numbers to determine where people stand on something, can we not?

We're not the SBC. We don't get motions from the floor and opportunities to adopt resolutions, etc. IMO our structure itself makes determining where CBFers stand on an issue rather difficult. So looking at numbers can be helpful.

Also, if a person doesn't give to the ministries of the CBF with their tithes, in what sense is that person a CBFer? CBF is not a church. It claims to be not a denomination too. I've never given a dollar to the Baptist Peace Fellowship. Consequently, I don't consider myself as a part of the Baptist Peace Fellowship. I support CBF missions though.

Ed: No Aaron you did not say "we determine morality on the basis of general support", that was my statement of what "an informal study of some sort was done in recent months to gauge the financial impact to the CBF of a change in policy toward homosexuality" looks like to me.

The way I have seen CBF work for twenty plus years is to present ideas of how we can best minister and didcuss them at state and regional meetings and in the coordinating council which brings suggestions to the General assembly to be presented for a thumbs up or down vote. I may have well missed something but this recent conference was the first time a relatively small group was assembled to consider any particular aspect of life, especially with in 90 days prior to a National Assembly. And then having most of the presentations come from persons some who seem to have no CBF connection espousing a rather far left bias. As you your self have said their was not balance.

And when you ask " if a person doesn't give to the ministries of the CBF with their tithes, in what sense is that person a CBFer? I would say to the extent that they support CBF efforts with some sort of monetary gifts, and personal time and energy. Trudy and I believe and practice tithing through our local church, we contribute to CBF as GOD provides a surplus to our budget which includes expenses to attend regional and national CBF Events. And any time I get an opening at our associational board meeting or at the Upstate ABC- NYS Board of Missions meeting and the ABC-NYS Biennials. I put in a good word for CBF And as you know our church hosted the Spring meeting of the BFNE just about a year ago. In a few week we will attend the the BFNE meeting in Swansea Ma.

Our contributions to CBF are through periodic gifts and to the various offerings at the Assemblies. If we send a gift it is by check at an Assembly we may contribute by check of cash since we do not itemize on our tax return. And no our church does not have CBF in its budget as of yet except as they reimburse Trudy's meeting expenses under continuing Education. And because of what she shares in her sermons and teaching they feel it is well worth the expense. Of course since we usually drive I benefit from her travel allowance. I think they could have gotten a rather accurate measure of the general position of CBFer on the idea of changing the personnel policy by putting it to a vote after a specified break out listening session with no wide pre- meeting hype.

[Ed Pettibone]

"Sandy" It is very important to consider who makes up CBF, and who is supporting it financially to determine how policy decisions related to issues like this are made.

CBF was formed by Southern Baptists, many of whom had been high profile leaders prior to 1979, and who were generally opposed to the conservative leaders who were being elected and nominated to replace the old guard. Being opposed to the conservative resurgence does not necessarily translate directly into holding a more liberal, progressive theological perspective. The fact is that the main difference was over where to draw the lines with regard to missions cooperation, not over whether the Bible was inerrant and infallible. It isn't likely that anyone would have been able to hold a leadership position in the SBC, even prior to 1979, without open acceptance of the 1963 BFM, which clearly states the belief in a Bible that is "truth without any mixture of error."

Ed: But Sandy I believe that from 1963 up to 1979 it was well under stood that the belief in a Bible that is "truth without any mixture of error." Was open to private interpretation.

Sandy from prior post: The Alliance of Baptists represents most of the former SBC congregations that would be liberal and progressive enough to have the "welcoming and affirming" label which would go so far as to allow for hiring individuals living in an openly gay relationship. The Alliance has about 100 churches, of which fewer than 30 are also supporting CBF. On the other hand, about 90% of CBF's partnering churches still support the Cooperative Program of the SBC. CBF's leaders, for the most part, seem to be pretty happy with their position of cooperating with other Baptists, even though they disagree with their position on homosexuality, but they themselves are not going to ordain or call gays or lesbians to vocational ministry. It's pretty clear that most of them aren't going to call women as pastors, either.

Ed: Sandy where do you get the figures you have used here regarding Alliance churches. And the percentage of CBF partnering churches that " still support the Cooperative Program of the SBC" And again although CBF women seeing pastoral positions have
had a tough time the percentage finding pastoral is slowly improving. And I believe for some he openings for internships to some, to work with very well experienced pastors has been a blessing in disguise. We however have felt it is a bit unfair that only the under forty recent CBF affiliated seminary grads seem to be selected selected. And PK's still seem to have first dibs

Sandy: The argument about having to hold certain conservative theological positions to satisfy Texas Baptists who tend to be more conservative does not hold water. There are few CBF churches anywhere that are "welcoming and affirming" and few that would be persuaded to move CBF in a direction toward changing its hiring policy. CBF doesn't restrict its more progressive churches from doing as they please with regard to their vocational ministers and employees. Why are they insisting that CBF change its policy to be more in line with them?

Ed: Sandy, it is simple they to do not have enough places for their new seminary grads. And some new grads have fallen for the "you can't discriminate against homosexuals and complain about discrimination against women" ploy.

[Sandy]

It is fairly easy to determine the overlap between the Alliance and CBF. The Alliance is a very small group, and has a list of all 125 churches on its website. It is very easy to go down the list of churches and find those that are dually affiliated with CBF, by comparing it with the CBF listing of churches, also on line. It takes a little more time to check the CBF list against the list of contributing churches found on the SBC website, but you can go state by state. CBF lists 21 churches in Alabama, 20 of whom are still affiliated with the Alabama Baptist Convention and the SBC. Georgia has 61 CBF supporting churches, out of which 57 still support the GBC and SBC. North Carolina has more CBF congregations than any other state, with a unique alignment that includes churches which contribute to the state organization, CBFNC, but don't contribute to the national organization, and vice-versa, but even out of that list of over 300 churches, with about 180 that contribute to the national CBF, there are only 22 that I can't find on any SBC or BSCNC contributing list, well under 10%. In fact, the states with the highest percentages of CBF churches not supporting the SBC are Virginia, with 10 churches out of 107 not on the SBC list, but still on the BGAV list, and Texas, with 8 out of 72 not on the SBC list, and 6 of those not on the BGCT list.

The giving will give you another clue as to the level of support for CBF among churches that dually support the SBC. The average gift to CBF from one of its partnering churches is $8,000. I get that by dividing their total receipts from churches by the total number of contributing churches they report. That's an average. So among "uniquely aligned" CBF congregations like South Main Houston, which gave $250,000, or FBC Asheville, NC which gave over $150,000, those kinds of amounts are common. With receipts running less than $14 million, that means that about 10% of the churches are giving 90% of the money. That's consistent with the number of churches which are uniquely affiliated with CBF as opposed to those which remain in the SBC.

[Haruo]

Sandy, did your research show any Alliance churches that are still SBC or SBC-state-convention-supporting?

[Dave Roberts]

It is fairly easy to determine the overlap between the Alliance and CBF. The Alliance is a very small group, and has a list of all 125 churches on its website. It is very easy to go down the list of churches and find those that are dually affiliated with CBF, by comparing it with the CBF listing of churches, also on line. It takes a little more time to check the CBF list against the list of contributing churches found on the SBC website, but you can go state by state. CBF lists 21 churches in Alabama, 20 of whom are still affiliated with the Alabama Baptist Convention and the SBC. Georgia has 61 CBF supporting churches, out of which 57 still support the GBC and SBC. North Carolina has more CBF congregations than any other state, with a unique alignment that includes churches which contribute to the state organization, CBFNC, but don't contribute to the national organization, and vice-versa, but even out of that list of over 300 churches, with about 180 that contribute to the national CBF, there are only 22 that I can't find on any SBC or BSCNC contributing list, well under 10%. In fact, the states with the highest percentages of CBF churches not supporting the SBC are Virginia, with 10 churches out of 107 not on the SBC list, but still on the BGAV list, and Texas, with 8 out of 72 not on the SBC list, and 6 of those not on the BGCT list.

The giving will give you another clue as to the level of support for CBF among churches that dually support the SBC. The average gift to CBF from one of its partnering churches is $8,000. I get that by dividing their total receipts from churches by the total number of contributing churches they report. That's an average. So among "uniquely aligned" CBF congregations like South Main Houston, which gave $250,000, or FBC Asheville, NC which gave over $150,000, those kinds of amounts are common. With receipts running less than $14 million, that means that about 10% of the churches are giving 90% of the money. That's consistent with the number of churches which are uniquely affiliated with CBF as opposed to those which remain in the SBC.

Sandy, I appreciate your research, which is reasonably accurate as far as it goes. What it neglects is a glitch that makes this information somewhat suspect. I have pastored two churches that no longer supported SBC causes in any way. Yet, they were still counted by the SBC. If they submitted the annual associational report, required to remain in good standing with the local association, the software automatically counts them as SBC churches. One finally solved the problem by leaving the association over other issues. Now they are no longer counted. As long as associations do not demand a better way of classifying churches and rely solely upon the ACP software, the counts will not be accurate.

[Sandy]

Dave, I don't think you can do any kind of research at all with Baptist statistics and get more than just a "reasonably accurate" picture. I spotted at least one church listed on CBF's website that I know hasn't contributed to the fellowship since around 2000, when their last pastor left. At any rate, comparisons of pages on websites give a general idea of the perspective, though my point is that there are not very many churches or individuals involved in CBF who would be inclined to revisit, and revise, its current hiring policy regarding openly gay or lesbian individuals.

[Neil Heath]

Perhaps there are more churches like mine out there, Sandy. We give a very small amount to SBC and the rest to CBF. The SBC amount comes from a few older members who still want their money to go there (and in my opinion have never understood the dramatic changes in SBC).
Being Baptist, we honor giving wishes of every member, but I would guess our SBC amount is well under 3% of our missions giving, and will decline each time we have a funeral.

Neil

[Sandy]

Perhaps there are more churches like mine out there, Sandy. We give a very small amount to SBC and the rest to CBF. The SBC amount comes from a few older members who still want their money to go there (and in my opinion have never understood the dramatic changes in SBC).
Being Baptist, we honor giving wishes of every member, but I would guess our SBC amount is well under 3% of our missions giving, and will decline each time we have a funeral.

Neil

No doubt there are, Neil. Likewise, I suspect, and the dollar amounts would suggest, that there are many other CBF congregations that give to CBF at the request of a few of their members, or perhaps a few of their leaders, but give the bulk of their missions money to the SBC. There are also some churches which give a portion of their missions money to CBF under the influence of a pastor, and when he leaves, the church cuts it off and stops contributing. I saw that happen a lot when I was involved with CBF.

I was a member of one of CBF's biggest supporting churches for over a decade, one of those churches which severed its ties with the SBC. It's an aging and declining congregation, it is still a good missions-giving church, though it has downsized its staff at least twice in the last twenty years. But even there, finding support for reversing CBF's policy on hiring wouldn't be an easy job.

[Neil Heath]

I moved the last several posts to a new topic on the NC vote since they related more to that and it seemed likely to attract additional posts.

Neil

[Gene Scarborough]

Good move, Neil!

[Neil Heath]

Just recently received the latest issue of "Christian Ethics Today", which has published a special issue containing the Proceedings of the Sexuality Conference. Papers by all the presenters are included. The editor, Pat Anderson, says they will also publish it in book form at a future date. I found it helpful to read the second article, which explained how the conference came about and the process that was followed to shape its content and format. The publication has some excellent, thought-provoking material, and is free to subscribers.

The entire Sexuality Conference special issue is also available on their web site at http://www.christianethicstoday.com/wp/.

[Ed Pettibone]

Just recently received the latest issue of "Christian Ethics Today", which has published a special issue containing the Proceedings of the Sexuality Conference. Papers by all the presenters are included. The editor, Pat Anderson, says they will also publish it in book form at a future date. I found it helpful to read the second article, which explained how the conference came about and the process that was followed to shape its content and format. The publication has some excellent, thought-provoking material, and is free to subscribers.

The entire Sexuality Conference special issue is also available on their web site at http://www.christianethicstoday.com/wp/.

Ed: Neil, I also got my copy of the Aggregate Issue 88 last week. Wondered why it is dated Fall 2012
Haven't really explored it, I wasn't favorably impressed with much of content in the online video presentations at the time of the conference. Is there some good reason I should take another look?

[Neil Heath]

I haven't read beyond the first two articles, Ed. Not suggesting you should look at it again, just making the material available for people like me who didn't attend the event or watch it online.

I seem to recall a good bit of discussion here as to the motivations of those who planned the conference. I thought the second article about how it came to be might answer some of those questions.

Neil

[Ed Pettibone]

I haven't read beyond the first two articles, Ed. Not suggesting you should look at it again, just making the material available for people like me who didn't attend the event or watch it online.

I seem to recall a good bit of discussion here as to the motivations of those who planned the conference. I thought the second article about how it came to be might answer some of those questions.

Neil

Ed: Thanks Neil, I will attempt to look at that second article some time today, after I clear at least the front 60' of drive way. It only has about an inch of snow ( not really enough to use the snow blower) but the temperature is hovering around zero so I will be clearing snow in limited increments. High today is to be 10 degrees with wind chill of +3, Presently a true +3 degrees. Tonight we are supposed to have a true ten below zero.

[Michael Wrenn]

I'd be glad for some of my mod/lib friends to start these topics on CBF stuff and find them slow on the draw.

My hit count usually goes down when I do CBF stuff...yep...went down today.

I think that it is just a matter of time before the CBF does pull the trigger here. They may nuance it and not go full bore.

Pardon all the martial metaphors.

If I were a conservative CBFer with a traditional, Biblical, view on the subject, I would be wondering if the organization was getting to far afield for me to continue to identify with them.

I consider myself overall to be moderate, but this is what I am wondering, too. All I see remaining are extremes of the right and left which I want no part of.

[TrudyU]

I'd be glad for some of my mod/lib friends to start these topics on CBF stuff and find them slow on the draw.

My hit count usually goes down when I do CBF stuff...yep...went down today.

I think that it is just a matter of time before the CBF does pull the trigger here. They may nuance it and not go full bore.

Pardon all the martial metaphors.

If I were a conservative CBFer with a traditional, Biblical, view on the subject, I would be wondering if the organization was getting to far afield for me to continue to identify with them.

I consider myself overall to be moderate, but this is what I am wondering, too. All I see remaining are extremes of the right and left which I want no part of.

Ed: Michael where are you looking that you see only the extremes remaining? How long has it been since you attended a CBF meeting, National, State/Regional ? Will you be in Grenville in June? I think I could introduce you to a number of true moderate centrist. Now i am not saying that all of them would agree with you and I on the issue of homosexuality or that you and I would agree an every thing. I seem to remember our dis But agreeing a few times. But I do agree that some of the leadership are making some discomforting noise, but frankly, I think they need us more than we need them. If I did not value the "Principal" of association I could almost become an independent.

[Sandy]

I'd be glad for some of my mod/lib friends to start these topics on CBF stuff and find them slow on the draw.

My hit count usually goes down when I do CBF stuff...yep...went down today.

I think that it is just a matter of time before the CBF does pull the trigger here. They may nuance it and not go full bore.

Pardon all the martial metaphors.

If I were a conservative CBFer with a traditional, Biblical, view on the subject, I would be wondering if the organization was getting to far afield for me to continue to identify with them.

I consider myself overall to be moderate, but this is what I am wondering, too. All I see remaining are extremes of the right and left which I want no part of.

I don't know about "extremes of the right" in CBF. The Texas group, which has generally been thought to be more conservative (and more influential in CBF than their numbers seem to warrant) than the rest of CBF is not far enough to the right to be considered extreme. In fact, looking at the way things have developed, at least some of the Texas group has turned out to be well to the left of center, including the group of Texas CBF'ers from whence the new coordinator came. Most of the CBF people on this board are apologists for the organization, and almost everyone else is sympathetic, so you will never see any genuine criticism of CBF or a discussion of internal problems here. There are folks out there who were in CBF for a good while and left, for various reasons, quite a few of them as a matter of fact, including myself. The leftward leaning group is small, but it has been moving toward complete control of the fellowship, and now that Suzii sits in the big chair, and there's a downsizing of the coordinating council coming, my guess is that the policy against hiring gays and lesbians will be repealed, and the left will run the show.

[TrudyU]

Ed stiil on Trudys computer, Bought a new vehicle Tuesday but am still solvent, may get my Desktop fixed one of these days :

Sandy you are entitled to your opinions even if their is little to no real basis presented. Texas Baptist are but part of CBF. Bill Leonard pointed out the danger of regional competitiveness twenty years ago.