Not Everyone in CBF is Celebrating

[Sandy]

https://adammcduffie.wordpress.com/2016 ... brate-yet/

The issue of support for ministries or entities which are LGBT friendly is going to keep coming up for CBF. It has attracted individuals and churches which see inclusion and affirmation of those in the LGBT community as a "prophetic" advancement. On the other hand, there also appear to be many individuals and churches within the fellowship who see prophetic ministry as one which brings conviction of sin, repentance, redemption and restoration by the cross as the pathway to God, for those who are LGBT as well as those who are captured and imprisoned by other sin. It's executive director pointed out, accurately, that individual churches already have the freedom to go where they wish with regard to their approach to ministry. The question is, does CBF have to go there in order to be considered "prophetic" by those who think that affirmation fits that definition?

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

If I were CBFer I'd be concerned. Keith's church was considerably on the liberal side of moderate, based on what he has sais over the years, and yet when the gay marriage was put squarely before them a bunch of folks left.

I don't know how the CBF can thread this needle without some difficulty and loss.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

As an independent, autonomous organization itself, CBF made a decision regarding how it, as a fellowship, would handle this particular issue long before most of those who are now agitating for change decided to join it. If it had made the decision to come down on the other side of this issue, many more of its current partners would not be involved. It offers the opportunity for churches to decide what they will support, and it doesn't part ways with churches that think differently on this particular issue, even though as an entity, it has taken this path. You can't get much more respectful of church independence and autonomy than that.

It's a wise choice, simply because if it became the focus of a change, it would probably result in the loss of most of its partners and financial support.

[Tim Bonney]

Yes Sandy, I get that, every Baptist organization is separately autonomous.

The CBF can pretend to be independent from its own constituency and take a position that many in its constituency wouldn't necessarily approve. It is why most denominations with congregational polity have SOME connections that modify autonomy. The ABC/USA has a system of clergy recognition and you have to join an ABC region to be an ABC church. So the ABC doesn't believe in the same kind of total disconnected autonomy that the CBF does or, for that matter, that the SBC claims (even when they don't follow it.)

So the whole thing is just one big disconnect. No wonder younger members are frustrated.

[Sandy]

The stance of a denomination or fellowship, or other entity, in Baptist polity has no effect on the independence or autonomy of a church. Church autonomy rests on its ability to ordain and call its own ministers and deacons, to determine the qualifications for membership and to choose its members, to determine its own doctrine and theology, and to choose what denomination, or organization, or entities, or mission boards, that it will support. The theological position of any group with which it is affiliated has no bearing on autonomy or independence. In most Baptist organizations, churches can walk away by simply stopping their financial support through the organization or entity. If it holds a position that they are not in sympathy or agreement with, they can choose to join or not to join. If they join, they can certainly participate in efforts to bring about change, while accepting the fact that a previous group of leaders has spoken, and made a decision, with the support of the majority, that they believe is best for the good of the organization. If a congregation is disfellowshipped because the organization believes its perspectives are not congruent with the church, that's not a violation of the church's independence or autonomy. Nor is it a problem when a church decides it will leave. There's no penalty for either the church, or the denomination, that results. And since CBF doesn't disfellowship churches, it's a moot argument as far as they are concerned.

I've watched Presbyterian churches here attempt to disengage from their denomination, PCUSA, and it's not easy for them. They forfeit their property, and their ministers lose a lot in the way of pension, insurance coverage, salary and other benefits. Quite a difference. Anything the SBC might do that appears to be interfering with church independence and autonomy is not even close to that.

I'd guess that the group pushing for a more open policy on LGBT persons in CBF is a pretty small minority, or they'd have succeeded in changing the bylaws and constitution by now. I'd also guess that if they succeeded, there would be a lot of churches exercising their options, and leaving.

[Stephen Fox]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy when you say "I'd guess that the group pushing for a more open policy on LGBT persons in CBF is a pretty small minority, or they'd have succeeded in changing the bylaws and constitution by now. I'd also guess that if they succeeded, there would be a lot of churches exercising their options, and leaving".

I agree that those "pushing" are a pretty small group, however they a gaining adherents and sympathizers. I also agree that if when they achieve the objective of making the Welcoming & Affirming stance a standard for CBF the number of people supporting the organization will take a decided dip and I doubt that those currently pushing for unrestricted inclusion of practicing homosexuals have the financial wherewithal to maintain it. There are many in CBF whom I respect and consider to be friends who go along with the idea of inclusion and in my studied opinion they are being led down a primrose path and taking others with them.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

I realize the differences between connectional denominations and those made up of congregational churches with their own independence and autonomy. I was using that as a comparative example. Keith's church still owns its property, has its pastor, makes its own decisions, and even though they may have lost a few members, and had to make some adjustments in staff insurance and retirement, the are still the same church, and they still hold the same position. Much different than the experience of a connectional church, and a clear demonstration of the church's autonomy. And if you're staying in an association or convention that holds a position with which your church strongly disagrees simply because of the insurance, pensions or benefits, it's hard to claim that the denomination is "bullying" your church.

[Tim Bonney]

I doubt buy the lack of associational bullying because I've seen it. Hire a woman pastor, you are out in the cold. Give to the CBF and some associations booted you or threatened not to see your messengers. Cutting off a relationship when you don't like someone else's actions is a form of pressure. It may or may not be an effective for of pressure and bullying but that's what it is.

What started out was for a group of like minded Baptists to fellowship together. But what it turns into in some cases is threats of shunning to keep people in line.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

As I've said another thread, I think I'm going to drop out of discussing local church autonomy with you all. For you it is an important part of your church structure for me now it is just an interesting item to discuss as it no longer relates to what I do. I'll just observe further discussions on the topic.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Oh Lordy Sandy, I'm not going to argue with you or anyone over women in ministry. It is no longer 1979. And I've not served in a denomination without women clergy since 1991. American Baptists, United Methodists and many others have had women clergy since before you were born, unless you are way older than I think you are.

This isn't an issue outside of Fundy World.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

Whether it's ordaining women, or gays, or transgender, or marrying people of the same gender, or believing that all pulpit furniture must be made out of oak, the issue doesn't matter. If your church belongs to an association that states that a condition of membership is having a pulpit made of oak, and yours is knotty pine, then they're not violating your autonomy if they decide you don't belong. That's a silly example, but it certainly illustrates the point. It's not a violation of your church's autonomy if it decides to take a position or do something that is contrary to a principle that is considered a requirement for cooperation with an association or convention. It might be a position on an issue that you, personally, disagree with, or on which entire denominations have taken a different position, but Baptist associations and conventions are also autonomous, and as such, all relationships they have with churches are voluntary. Churches are autonomous in that they choose whether or not to pursue membership or affiliation, based on what those associations and conventions have decided are the basis for the relationship.

CBF has decided that, as an organization, it won't distribute financial support to organizations that are considered "LGBT friendly," (according to their definition of that position), and it will not hire persons who are openly LGBT. But it doesn't restrict affiliation or partnership with churches based on their position on that issue. Seems kind of selfish, arrogant and intolerant of those who want to force their view, which is that of a small minority within the fellowship, on everyone else that doesn't share it, calling their own view "prophetic," and caring more about an issue than they do about the ministry of CBF.