Paynter Retiring from CBF

[Sandy]

https://baptistnews.com/article/with-re ... 1DGCdhKii4

Did anyone associated with CBF see this coming? When she was selected, it seemed like most of the reports indicated that this was the new face of the fellowship for a long time to come. After working with church-related entities for a while, now, I understand the principle of "shelf-life" when it comes to how much time you have to accomplish your goals, what happens when you accomplish them, and what the language means when someone says they are "working with the board to transition leadership."

CBF has had some major shifts in structure, and in policy, during her tenure there. If you've been around Baptist churches and organizations for a while, you know that big shifts and changes frequently result in staff changes as well. There were the changes brought about by the Illumination Project which caused a lot of grumbling among the churches on the left, as well as those on the right, and which resulted in the BGCT eliminating CBF from their giving option menu. From CBF headquarters, since their general assembly and since the Illumination Project became policy, there's not been much comment or news, and they're usually tight lipped about their statistics. So it is hard to tell whether this is a planned transition, or a reaction to what's happening as a result of changes.

I see the search committee is made up of several individuals who seem to make up just about every other important committee or group within CBF. The names that I am familar with on that list are individuals whom I would call progressives, and the group seems to lean toward the "left" somewhat. They are also, for the most part, from the same churches that have several other members in CBF leadership. If I were going to speculate, I'd say they are aiming for a younger leader who is more appealing to the left side of the fellowship, more "progressive" in terms of those issues that we now consider to be progressive, and the really big question is whether the fourth executive director of CBF will be yet another one of those despised Texans.

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, as a member of the CBF Ministries Council, I was involved in a conference call on Monday with Suzii, and I heard her part of the story. What she related to us (and to members of the Governing Board was that her age and the demands of the amount of travel required for a CBF Executive Coordinator had caused her to consider a planned transition that would allow her to step away and move eventually back to Texas where her grandchildren are. She will be remaining at the CBF helm until a new coordinator is chosen and installed and has time to transition into the job as she transitions out. I know that at my age, and I'm only a few years older than Suzii, travel is not a lot of fun, and my body doesn't adapt as well to it. Having heard it directly from her makes me confident that this is her decision and not one pressed on her by any group, as some have sought to imply.

[Sandy]

There is a level of stress and pressure associated with any leadership position of any Christian organization or institution that people who are in the corporate business world don't really understand. I recently went through a transition myself, from a position where I felt that I had accomplished all that I came to do, and was capable of doing with my skills and experience, to one where I feel I can best use my expertise to the benefit of the institution. So I certainly understand, when you reach a certain age, and you've spent time and energy trying to meet the diverse expectations (and demands) of many people who have a level of leadership, involvement and ownership of an organization, you recognize when it is time to step away.

After more than 25 years of existence, CBF still hasn't really developed a distinctive identity. I know individuals who will say that the Illumination Project was a major step toward doing so, and others who say that it is an obstacle to the natural, organic way that the fellowship was developing, and I know a few who are saying that if it doesn't climb down off the fence that it is now on with regard to LGBT employment and mission service, they are done with it, from both sides of the issue. I would say the stress level over that inside the Atlanta office is pretty high.

I don't see that playing to dually affiliated churches still on the SBC fence will benefit CBF much in the long run. Baptist churches are autonomous, and can do as they please as far as affiliations go, but I don't see much future in developing an identity based on the support of Baptist congregations that also support another Baptist denomination, regardless of the extent of their support, and the churches that are uniquely aligned with CBF seem to lean much more favorably toward simply dropping sexual orientation and gender identity as employment requirements for anything within the organization. In other words, CBF's future lies in keeping the loyalty and support of congregations like Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, DC, or Broadway Ft. Worth, or Northside Atlanta, or Lakeshore in Waco, TX. I wouldn't push any of the dual affiliated churches out, let them decide on their own time and in their own way. But those churches are core supporters, and loyal ones, and if you look at any key committee or board within CBF, you'll find that the same churches provide the leadership of the fellowship. The organization's policies, including hiring for all positions, should reflect their values and convictions, not those of partially committed congregations or "fringe" churches. And even if the money and support is an issue, I'd be willing to bet that 80% of CBF's financial support comes from the 20% or so of its churches that are uniquely aligned, and don't support the SBC. I think that's on the table for the next executive coordinator, whoever he or she may be.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, are you saying that you can't really effectively be connected to two Denominations?

The ABC/USA has a lot of churches that are dually aligned with another Baptist body or the UCC. There are a fair number of UM churches that are yoked with a Presbyterian or UCC congregation.

Why is this a problem for the CBF?

[Sandy]

I would say that the difference in perspective between CBF churches that are dually affiliated with the SBC is quite different from those that gave up their SBC affiliation with little or no struggle, and are uniquely aligned with CBF. Those are the churches that, by far, provide the highest level of financial support, and they are also like minded when it comes to some of the issues that are proving to be very divisive. They are farther apart on social issues than the mainline churches that dually affiliate and share clergy.

The recent Illumination Project illustrates this very well. It was a move toward more inclusive policy toward LGBT persons, but it angered the dual SBC affiliates because it was too far to the left. But it also angered a lot of the core constituency churches (Calvary in DC, Lakeshore in Waco) because they didn't think it went far enough. But those churches don't have a bigger footprint in the SBC than CBF like most of the dual affiliates do. Instead of riding the fence, CBF needs to decide to either not hire anyone for anything if they are LGBT, or not ask the question at all, and open all positions to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. If they do the latter, they will place themselves in the camp with the churches that give the bulk of their financial support. Maybe not all of the dual affiliates would depart, and that would be fine, but I don't think this is an issue that lets you ride the fence. The BGCT has already removed CBF as one of the giving options, why risk losing the churches that are their core supporters?

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, I think you generalize too much from Texas, the base of your CBF experience. I can only give you anecdotal responses, but let me go ahead. My experience as interim for five churches and a time as interim field coordinator for CBF of VA tells me that churches are all over the board. First experience was with a CBF church that was CBF totally, but was not very passionate about any denominational affiliation. They cared much more for their local dealings. The second was a CBF church that was passionate about CBF and showed it. The third was a multiple affiliation with CBF, Alliance, ABCUSA, and the local association. They had some affinity for all their affiliations, but none was predominant. The fourth was dually aligned with CBF/SBC giving about twice to Global Missions than to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, but there seemed little passion for either. My current interim is with a CBF church, and some members are passionate about CBF, but many are rather unconcerned about this. Thirty percent of their mission giving goes to CBF and 70% to the BGAV.

My main concern is that I suspect there is a great deal more post-denominationalism among most of the churches with their focus mostly on what happens in the local church and not on the wider world. While I know from serving CBFVA that church affiliation with CBF ranged from passionate churches who contributed strongly to CBF to the other end of the spectrum with a few individuals giving to CBF as designations through their churches. I suspect this is much more a symptom of the suspicion of all hierarchies than response to a single issue. While there are a few passionate SBC churches around me, what I sense is that they too suffer from the lack of denominational concerns. People seldom come for the label but for the contents inside the church.

[Sandy]

Well, Texas is the base of my CBF experiences. But I was a member of a CBF congregation for nine years which was one of the first to sever ties completely with the SBC, which is one of CBF's top five givers, and which has continuously had members serve in CBF leadership, and currently has one on the governing board, had one on the Illumination project committee, and has one on the executive coordinator search committee. All three of the fellowship's executive coordinators have been Texans. And I believe, if the website is accurate, Texas contains the largest single cluster of CBF affiliated congregations.

My perspective is that of a former supporter, former member of an actively engaged CBF congregation who made a deliberate decision to step away from support and involvement, though we remained members of that church for two years after our decision regarding CBF. So I'm definitely an outsider, though my participation in discussions here, offered from that perspective, also come from still having an interest because I still have close friends who serve in churches that are affiliated to one degree or another, including a very close personal friend whom I met at seminary who serves one of those churches that shares its missions giving with the CP based on how a member checks their offering envelope box. Cecil Sherman was our pastor while we were at Southwestern.

So from that perspective, I see that Paynter was a respected leader, and since the organization isn't that old, didn't really have to operate in the shadow of a former iconic, long term leader. I didn't hear the kind of accolades about her that I did about Sherman, nor did I hear the kind of complaining that followed Vestal. She did take some intitatives to stabilize the finances, including making some discreet staffing cuts and presided over a restructuring and reorganization that cut expenses, though I will always think the expense of the weekly airplane commute from Austin, and the living expense in Atlanta caused a problem especially with churches where there was a struggle for continued loyalty and support. But I don't hear much in the way of positive reviews about the illumination project, which was done at least in part at her initiation and with her involvement. She's stepping down, perhaps of her own initiation, but at a time when there is a lot of criticism about the results of the Illumination Project, and a lot of frustration about the perceived lack of input and approval that surrounds its implementation. My seminary friend's church has "temporarily suspended" their CBF contribution while a committee considers "options." So I can certainly understand why her decision to retire at this point generates speculation about why.

[William Thornton]

What were the complaints about vestal?

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

Was BPFNA defunded because of its strongly pro-gay position?

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

Sandy in rep;y to William: " He got a lot of criticism for his stance on the hiring of gays and lesbians, and from the "progressive" side of CBF. There was a big controversy stirred up around a general assembly meeting at which John Killinger, a Presbyterian pastor, made a series of presentations in breakout sessions which seemed to deny the deity of Christ and led to his having to respond to accusations that CBF wasn't "Christian." And I believe it was during Vestal's tenure that the Baptist Peace Fellowship was defunded.

Ed: "And Sandy what do you understand Danial's "stance on the hiring of gays and lesbians" was then and is now? It so happens that I am one of the people who was disappointed in Killinger's presentations that year, but I would remind all, Dan Vestal, was not the Chair of the Program committee. Nor do I believe he was responsible for the defunding of Baptist Peace Fellowship."

Sandy: Vestal openly addressed CBF's policy against hiring gays and lesbians, and stated his support for that position more than once. His perspective, which he claimed was consistent with a Biblical one, is on the record. Whether it is different now has no bearing on the discussion, because it was something he was criticized for when he was executive coordinator of CBF. And yeah, he wasn't chair of the program committee, and I think Killinger probably took a lot of people, including committee members, by surprise but the buck stopped on Vestal's desk, and he got criticism for it, whether justified or not, doesn't matter.


It was actually Sherman who led the effort to defund the BPFNA, but Vestal, while loosening the policy somewhat on a few things, supported it, and took his lumps from the left for it.

https://baptistnews.com/article/baptist ... 1amyPZFzIU[/quote]

Ed: You do seem to have an accurate understanding of Vestals position on CBF's initial hiring policy. and I haven't heard or seen any evidence that Danial has changed his position any more than I have. BTW, I was at the the Assembly you speak of concerning Killinger and I believe that when you say " There was a big controversy stirred up around a general assembly meeting at which John Killinger, a Presbyterian pastor, made a series of presentations in breakout sessions which seemed to deny the deity of Christ and led to his having to respond to accusations that CBF wasn't "Christian", you exaggerate the extent of any controversy generated around that General Assembly by Killingers presentations.

[Haruo]

What did this Killinger say vis-à-vis the deity or divinity of Christ? it

[JE Pettibone]

[Haruo]

I'm just throwing the question open for feedback from Sandy or anyone else who knows or thinks they know.

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

ABP Also reported : Vestal denounced the theology Killinger expressed. “The only confession of the [early] Christian church was ‘Jesus is Lord,’” he said. “To make that confession cost many people their lives because of its radical claim. To say and believe that Jesus is Lord was to say and believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God. It was a clear affirmation of the deity of Jesus. And the Incarnation of God in the man Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

“And so for somebody in one of our workshops to question the Incarnation is simply very painful for me,” Vestal continued. “I have known John Killinger to be a popular Presbyterian preacher. He was a professor at Samford University. … But we had no idea that his views on Christ were what he declared in this breakout session. His perspective is deeply troubling to me.”

Vestal’s own views on the lordship of Christ are made clear in his book, Being the Presence of Christ, just published by the Upper Room. The book’s premise, according to Vestal, is “that all the gospels were written from the perspective of the Resurrection, and the living Christ is none other than the incarnate Christ that was proclaimed in the pages of Scripture.”

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

[Sandy]

I brought up Killinger as a specific example of an issue that arose during Vestal's tenure as coordinator, in response to a question. Maybe his presence and his words weren't that big of a deal to the rank and file CBF'ers who were at that assembly, and if that's the case, then Baptist Press got it right. Vestal clearly felt the need to respond, and if you'll look at the blog I referenced, he was criticized for waiting, and for responding because BP was criticial, something he denied while engaging in a rather passionate defense of CBF, and expressing a cristology completely counter to a man whom they'd invited and paid to speak at their annual gathering. He declared the invitation a mistake they wouldn't make again.

[JE Pettibone]