Proposed Changes for Seating SBC Messengers

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

Have the Southern Baptists heard of ? Oh dear, I hope I didn't just violate basic local community standards with that reference.

[Jerry_B]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Jerry B said: "We don't take kindly to ultimatums from those who's continued existence depends on churches like ours giving to them."

The CP ceases to exist without the SBC's CBF-leaning churches? Hardly, although part of the CP's long slow slide downward as a percentage of church offerings is attributable to churches now CBF or dually SBC/CBF.

I wonder why churches like Keith's bother with the SBC at all (and I make no qualitative judgment about his church). Perhaps some in the membership are SBC diehards and wish to maintain support for some aspects of SBC work?

In fact, Keith's church (if I recall correctly) would be clearly in violation of the new definition of "in friendly cooperation" on the basis of the baptism section of their by-laws. As it stands now, there is no constitutional requirement that such a church operate in strict conformity to the BFM but may maintain affiliation at whatever level of support they wish. I don't see a problem with this. The amended definition would draw a line marking the church out of "friendly cooperation" with the SBC; however, a motion to exclude would have to be presented and approved at an SBC annual meeting that specifically names his church. Even if his church had never accepted the non-immersion baptism of a membership candidate, the fact that the church had through their by-laws "spoken against" the BFM would be sufficient grounds for expulsion. I don't like the speech police aspect of the proposed change.

I use Keith's church just as an example. I suppose there are hundreds, thousands of SBC churches in similar situations.

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

Sandy said: "Most of them accept the BFM 1963, which doesn't "deliberately oppose" or disagree with the BFM 2000."

But a church that adopts the BFM 1963 could easily be said to be acting contrary to the BFM2000. Some SBC watchdogs make a point that there is only one adopted BFM, the one adopted in 2000. That is the only BFM currently.

I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that any church that adopts the old, former BFM is a church in friendly cooperation, but such a church would be violating the new wording.

I oppose the amendment. It is a can of worms.

[Neil Heath]

My experience is the opposite of Sandy's on the point of giving to CBF and CP, my own church being a prime example. We have a few folks who still want to support the SBC, and we honor that, as any truly Baptist church should.

All of them are older members, so the amount given to SBC causes will decline each time we have a funeral.

[Jerry_B]

I don't think the SBC is going away if dally aligned churches are given the boot, it was more of a comment about how the "receiver" of a gift is telling the "giver" of said gift how things are going to work. It hardly seems like a viable long term strategy.

What will it be next time and there is always a next time with fundamentalism?

[Tim Bonney]

I often have wondered if one of the reasons so many churches in the CBF continue to give some money to the SBC is that it is much easy talking about a church leaving a denomination than it to make that break. For many churches it has just been easier to let people give some money to the SBC than deal with the conflict (short or long) of a clean break.

Right now there are calls within the UMC to split over the issue of homosexuality. People are writing blog articles about some kind of clean break that would lesson or end fighting over liberal and conservative issues.

My past experience with the SBC etc. makes me think that there is no such thing as an easy split or a clean break for most.

[Sandy]

CBF has been much more of a "splinter" from the SBC than a "split." At the outset, the vision was to form a group that would re-direct funding back into places where the SBC was taking it out of the CP budget, and re-directing CP giving around the executive committee. There were others, most notably the Alliance of Baptists, who were doing similar, but not exactly the same, kinds of things, organizing formally or informally, and at a lot of cross purposes. Some of the churches were more directed in their efforts, and already had a history of being at odds with the SBC, not only through the "controversy" but even before that. I was in a CBF church in Houston at the time, one in which the lion's share of designated giving went to CBF, and in which there was quite a push to sever ties altogether with the SBC. Eventually they did it, partly because they felt it was best for them, but partly to encourage other CBF supporters to do the same, partly to send the message that they wanted more from CBF in the way of a denominational identity, and partly to send a message to the SBC. Altogether, through that period of time, I think the box score on CBF churches severing ties with the SBC may have flirted with the 150 mark, out of their claimed number of supporting churches at around 1,800.

On occasion, in Virginia and North Carolina, you hear about a church here and there severing ties. But I would bet that if stats were kept, that figure would still be less than 200. If there were a push from the SBC that shoved churches off the fence, my guess, based on what I consider reasonable observation, would be that another 100, at the most, 150, churches would leave the SBC altogether. There would still be fence sitters.

People I know in CBF churches, not a lot, but a representative spectrum, tell me that CBF support is the smaller of the two, and that in most cases, those churches allow the designation out of deference to a few of their church members. The late John Baugh's former church in Houston is considered one of the core supporters of CBF in that association. But under their current pastor, for the last decade, they've become increasingly supportive of the SBC, and their CBF contribution represents less than 5% of their mission giving. They removed the notation of CBF affiliation from their website. If they had to choose, I think I could guess which way they'd go. Of course, on this board, I'd expect individuals to be in churches that, if still supporting the SBC, it's marginal. But if someone did some research overall, I think you'd find that maybe 80% of those that support CBF are the other way around, and would drop on the SBC side of the fence, if forced off their perch.

[Tim Bonney]

Interesting Sandy. The CBF related churches I have connections with are among those who have left the SBC entirely such as my home church Kirkwood Baptist and Second Baptist Church, Liberty, MO. Both gave to the SBC as well for quite a while until the MBC made it too uncomfortable for them to participate. My mother-in-law was died in the wool WMU until the MBC refused to seat the messengers of their church for the usual narrow minded reasons. Now she'd not attend a SBC church to save her life.

I really doubt the current legislation is aimed at a particular group now. I think it is more of a tactic of tightening the control bit by bit.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I am too far out to know of course. But in other business sessions of church business when it is something kind of technical that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to most people it often isn't hard to pass. It just depends on who wants i passed or not. I usually see bylaws and standing rules changes fly by a quick vote.

[Jerry_B]

Don't know about other churches but our CBF giving is over double our SBC giving. Texas though seems to be a bit of an outlier when it comes to this type of thing. With two state conventions, most of the support questions center around are you BGCT or SBTC. When coming to my current church the questions where about which state convention do you support, I can't remember any questions about SBC, CBF.

The BF&M 2000 is a complete nonstarter for me for a multitude of reasons previously discussed. If the SBC is going to push churches to adopt it like they have with missionaries and staff, which they have been thus far been reluctant to do, then it would get interesting.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

There is another group of dually aligned churches. In several border areas, it was common for churches to affiliate with both the SBC and ABC. Many of the DC churches were traditionally this way as were MD, DE, some VA, and farther back some IN and OH churches. Single alignment will fly in the face of this tradition.

[Sandy]

[Jerry_B]

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

How about conditional rebaptism, like RC canon law allows for. The formula runs something like "If you have not previously been baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." After all, Baptists have generally agreed with the rest of the Church that you can be baptized only once, and the reason for "re"-baptism (anabaptism) is the belief that what was done previously (infant aspersion, to take the most usual example) was not "true" baptism. Of course, this would be harder to justify in a church (some Baptist churches, I believe, are this way) where rebaptism is required to join the local ("only true") church even when coming from another congregation of like faith and practice...

[Tim Bonney]

If you are in a church that only believes immersion baptism is valid baptism then I doubt people would feel any better about being "conditionally baptized." The doctrine my Church now is that if you do get sprinkled, splashed, or dunked a second time you just got wet. There isn't really any such thing as "re-baptism." I cannot actually peform a rebaptism even if someone asks me to. It is a violation of our Discipline and doctrine.

[Sandy]