Different themes for CBF in Birmingham

[Sandy]

https://cbfblog.com/2019/06/10/carol-mc ... -assembly/

Not exactly the equivalent of becoming SBC President, CBF deliberately spread out the power that the SBC concentrates in its highest elected office but there is a clear statement from CBF in their choice of a moderator-elect. Carol McEntyre, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Columbia, Missouri will be selected for that position. That is an underline of a major difference between CBF and the "complementarian" SBC.

And no issues embedded in this piece from the CBF blog, just a personal "get to know" the guy who will serve as moderator at the Birmingham meeting.

https://cbfblog.com/2019/06/17/up-close ... moderator/

There's not been a lot of coverage about reaction to the Illimination Project. That's been sort of kept quiet, even though two state conventions pulled the plug on the direct pathway for giving to CBF through their state convention.

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/ba ... aving-cbf/

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/ba ... gifts-cbf/

[Dave Roberts]

https://cbfblog.com/2019/06/10/carol-mcentyre-to-become-cbf-moderator-elect-at-birmingham-general-assembly/

Not exactly the equivalent of becoming SBC President, CBF deliberately spread out the power that the SBC concentrates in its highest elected office but there is a clear statement from CBF in their choice of a moderator-elect. Carol McEntyre, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Columbia, Missouri will be selected for that position. That is an underline of a major difference between CBF and the "complementarian" SBC.

And no issues embedded in this piece from the CBF blog, just a personal "get to know" the guy who will serve as moderator at the Birmingham meeting.

https://cbfblog.com/2019/06/17/up-close ... moderator/

There's not been a lot of coverage about reaction to the Illimination Project. That's been sort of kept quiet, even though two state conventions pulled the plug on the direct pathway for giving to CBF through their state convention.

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/ba ... aving-cbf/

I can't speak to Texas, but in VA, the BGAV's withdrawal of the CBF giving option was done not out of conviction but from the blackmail of three large SBC churches who offered to defund the BGAV from their giving if they did not get their way to get rid of CBF as a partner. Their promise was to reduce the BGAV budget by at least $1-million per year. The only conviction there was financial.
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/ba ... -gifts-cbf

[Haruo]

Dave, did you mean to add anything, or just to repost what Sandy already said, without commenting?

[Sandy]

I can't speak to Texas, but in VA, the BGAV's withdrawal of the CBF giving option was done not out of conviction but from the blackmail of three large SBC churches who offered to defund the BGAV from their giving if they did not get their way to get rid of CBF as a partner. Their promise was to reduce the BGAV budget by at least $1-million per year. The only conviction there was financial.

I think that's Dave's response, somehow embedded in the quote.

Here's the story from Baptist News Global. Looks like the same one that ran in the Standard.
https://baptistnews.com/article/virgini ... Qmp7PZFzIU

It looks like there are similarities between the two states. The BGCT has 4,500 uniquely aligned churches left after the split off of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. About 250 of those were also CBF affiliated, of which maybe 50 are uniquely CBF and not SBC. The amount that gets forwarded through the BGCT to CBF is about $750,000, which is about 5% of the BGCT's receipts. Looks like the BGAV may have a higher percentage of CBF affiliated congregations among their 1,500 churches, about 150 according to their website, but the dollar amount forwarded through the BGAV to CBF is slightly less than 5% of their total budget, about $450,000 out of $10 million. Both state conventions have disfellowshipped congregations over what they perceive to be an incorrect interpretation of LGBTQ issues and both are on record via resolutions opposing any kind of "welcoming or affirming" stance on the issue.

I would not doubt that there may be pressure being put on the leadership of both conventions from larger, more conservative churches, when CBF adopted the Illimination Project, but even though they've had their differences with the SBC, the vast majority of churches in both conventions have remained uniquely aligned with the SBC. The adoption of the Illumination Project signals a shift in CBF's position and it certainly cooled off the cooperation between both of them and CBF. And what I wonder is how many of the CBF churches who designated giving through the state conventions went ahead and directly sent their contribution to CBF? Given the reported dollar amounts, apparently some decided that was enough and stopped giving.

[Haruo]

Dave, did you mean to add anything, or just to repost what Sandy already said, without commenting?

Fiĉxed per Sandy's insight.

[William Thornton]

This isn't brain surgery. By squandering the CP giving options in TX and VA the CBF is taking steps to hasten its demise. Such is not the fault of pressure from a few churches but can be directly traced to CBF's own decisions. In ten years what will we be seeing?

Big donors and grants make up a frightening portion of their national budget, one that is shrinking. But on the positive side, small organizations can be quite tenacious concerning their own survival.

[Dave Roberts]

This isn't brain surgery. By squandering the CP giving options in TX and VA the CBF is taking steps to hasten its demise. Such is not the fault of pressure from a few churches but can be directly traced to CBF's own decisions. In ten years what will we be seeing?

Big donors and grants make up a frightening portion of their national budget, one that is shrinking. But on the positive side, small organizations can be quite tenacious concerning their own survival.

Interesting response, William. I know several CBF churches who, faced with the loss of the BGAV channel, directed a larger percentage of their giving to CBF and not to the BGAV, since they now contribute under the individualized plan and are known as "BGAV only" givers. I am at CBF in Birmingham, and I have not heard any "gloom and doom." Was part of the Governance Luncheon yesterday and the Ministries Council, and heard several new initiatives being discussed. The Illumination Project seems not to be a particular concern here in Birmingham. No one mentioned it yesterday. I think it's a very positive step to have a pastor back in charge.

[William Thornton]

This isn't brain surgery. By squandering the CP giving options in TX and VA the CBF is taking steps to hasten its demise. Such is not the fault of pressure from a few churches but can be directly traced to CBF's own decisions. In ten years what will we be seeing?

Big donors and grants make up a frightening portion of their national budget, one that is shrinking. But on the positive side, small organizations can be quite tenacious concerning their own survival.

Interesting response, William. I know several CBF churches who, faced with the loss of the BGAV channel, directed a larger percentage of their giving to CBF and not to the BGAV, since they now contribute under the individualized plan and are known as "BGAV only" givers. I am at CBF in Birmingham, and I have not heard any "gloom and doom." Was part of the Governance Luncheon yesterday and the Ministries Council, and heard several new initiatives being discussed. The Illumination Project seems not to be a particular concern here in Birmingham. No one mentioned it yesterday. I think it's a very positive step to have a pastor back in charge.

Fine by me. While it would seem to be simple for a church to just change the sendee addresses on checks, the elimination of the CBF option through the BGAV and BGCT Cooperative Program has had negative consequences on CBF revenue. But I agree that the CBF makes decisions and churches can follow or not follow, that the train is leaving the station and folks can either get on or not.

[Dave Roberts]

I can't speak to the BGCT, but in the BGAV, things were not so simple as just changing the address on the checks. To remain in good standing, BGAV churches have to select and file a giving plan. Than has meant that the church must vote on and accept a new plan and file it with the BGAV. I drew up a model for the paperwork for CBF churches to follow for doing this. The church action has to be submitted to the BGAV, or the church would go back to the WM-2 default plan. The confusion caused by this has been difficult for some churches, especially smaller ones or those with complicated financial plans linked to changes that had to be made. It's not as simple as it seems since BGAV provides the legal 501c-3 status for its member churches. Dropping contributions to the BGAV completely would mean the potential loss of 501c-3 exemptions from taxation, the acceptance of parsonage allowances, and the exemption from state and local taxation. I don't know how other state conventions other than NC work on this. Having been through the filing of a 501c-3 application for a non-profit shelter project and its state incorporation, I can assure you that most churches would throw up their hands at the fifty page application for the 501c-3.

[Sandy]

This isn't brain surgery. By squandering the CP giving options in TX and VA the CBF is taking steps to hasten its demise. Such is not the fault of pressure from a few churches but can be directly traced to CBF's own decisions. In ten years what will we be seeing?

Big donors and grants make up a frightening portion of their national budget, one that is shrinking. But on the positive side, small organizations can be quite tenacious concerning their own survival.

It's hard to get statistical information out of CBF. I've read in several of their publications that under Paynter's leadership, they put some contingency funds away instead of putting all of those big donor dollars in the budget. They've put enough away to compensate for an anticipated shortfall in giving this year, according to the article linked below.

From Dave's description, it seems the BGAV made it more difficult to channel money to CBF without going through the state convention. The BGCT had several options for churches to give. You could give to the SBC and determine what the split would be, percentage wise, between the BGCT and SBC. You could give to CBF and determine what the split would be between BGCT and CBF. You could give through the BGCT to both CBF and the SBC and determine the percentage. Or you could just give to the BGCT and let them keep all of it and send whatever you wanted wherever without involving the state convention in it. All of it counted as giving to the state convention.

https://baptistnews.com/article/cbf-to- ... QpfKtNKii4

I have trouble buying the "blackmail" argument. The BGAV has, via the resolution pathway, made its opposition to the affirmation of LGBTQ persons in church leadership well known by large majority votes at its annual meetings. About 150 Virginia Baptist churches are affiliated with CBF out of 1,500, and how many of those have severed their ties with the SBC altogether is unknown, but that gives those who aren't interested or who are still more friendly toward the SBC a clear majority. They have also disfellowshipped congregations for going past their threshold for cooperation with regard to their position on LGBTQ issues. The posture of the CBF churches should be gratitude that their state convention extends them this courtesy and respect for their position. The BGAV forwards $10 million to the SBC's CP in a year, and their last check to CBF was for about $450,000 or about 5% of the SBC gift. In this regard, they have many similarities to the BGCT, which has more CBF affiliated churches, about 200 or so with about 50 that have severed ties to the SBC, but a smaller percentage of the total number of 4,500. The BGCT also affirmed their opposition to homosexual and transgender church leadership via resolution and has also disfellowshipped churches, including one of their more prominent congregations recently, for being too far out of step with the convention position. In both conventions, from what I can see, CBF congregations have a disproportionate percentage of the leadership compared to their giving and numbers which makes me think those leaders had a good idea how the rest of the state convention might react to a significant change in position on this issue by CBF. One of the committee members is a BGCT pastor, who is in leadership in both the state convention and CBF and he would certainly have known.

The real decision here isn't that of either the BGAV or BGCT. CBF has made a definitive decision on a specific theological and doctrinal position. That pushed two state conventions to take immediate steps to distance themselves and end their partnerships. It appears that CBF's current leadership, a downsized coordinating council, is willing to define the Fellowship on this point. That means, IMHO, they are willing to accept the consequences, including the loss of state convention partnerships and individual churches not on board.

[Dave Roberts]

It appears that CBF's current leadership, a downsized coordinating council, is willing to define the Fellowship on this point. That means, IMHO, they are willing to accept the consequences, including the loss of state convention partnerships and individual churches not on board.

Obviously, Sandy, your information is dated. CBF is five years removed from having a national coordinating council. The new governance structure is five cycles down the road and based in three councils and advised by a fourth body. The three councils are the Governing Board, the Missions Council, and the Ministries Council. The fourth body recognized is the Movement Leadership Team which consists of all the state and/or regional coordinators across CBF. There are still state coordinating councils in some states, but not in the national body.

[William Thornton]

I appreciate the detailed explanation of how BGAV handles donations. My point, feebly made perhaps, was that anything making it harder for churches to contribute to the CBF will result in less giving. I've never heard of a denial of a charitable contribution to a church being rejected by IRS because the church failed to maintain affiliation with the org that has the 501(c)3 cover letter. I'm sure there are simple workarounds for this in regard to churches the irs not being interested in making churches apply individually.

Whatever the details, it seems clear that actions by the BGCT and BGAV have transpired so as to cut cbf revenue.

[Dave Roberts]

I appreciate the detailed explanation of how BGAV handles donations. My point, feebly made perhaps, was that anything making it harder for churches to contribute to the CBF will result in less giving. I've never heard of a denial of a charitable contribution to a church being rejected by IRS because the church failed to maintain affiliation with the org that has the 501(c)3 cover letter. I'm sure there are simple workarounds for this in regard to churches the irs not being interested in making churches apply individually.

Whatever the details, it seems clear that actions by the BGCT and BGAV have transpired so as to cut cbf revenue.

William, I don't disagree with you that the changes have slowed some donations because there is no longer the BGAV provided option. What I am saying reflects a letter that was read to me by a pastor who had received it from the BGAV, threatening them with the loss of their IRS status if thy didn't give more to the BGAV and informing them that they did not qualify for messengers to the annual meeting last year because they chose to send all their gifts to CBF and CBFVA. VA may be the only state where that stick is being wielded, but I can attest to its use here. Does that not threaten the autonomy of churches to respond in that threatening way?

[Dave Roberts]

I have always wondered why those who want to depart from fellowship with anyone who might be supportive of LGBTQ folks never takes the rest of Romans 1, especially verses 29-31, as cause for disfellowshipping churches. Guess we are selective literalists or have condemned those who practice what we do not.

[William Thornton]

I appreciate the detailed explanation of how BGAV handles donations. My point, feebly made perhaps, was that anything making it harder for churches to contribute to the CBF will result in less giving. I've never heard of a denial of a charitable contribution to a church being rejected by IRS because the church failed to maintain affiliation with the org that has the 501(c)3 cover letter. I'm sure there are simple workarounds for this in regard to churches the irs not being interested in making churches apply individually.

Whatever the details, it seems clear that actions by the BGCT and BGAV have transpired so as to cut cbf revenue.

William, I don't disagree with you that the changes have slowed some donations because there is no longer the BGAV provided option. What I am saying reflects a letter that was read to me by a pastor who had received it from the BGAV, threatening them with the loss of their IRS status if thy didn't give more to the BGAV and informing them that they did not qualify for messengers to the annual meeting last year because they chose to send all their gifts to CBF and CBFVA. VA may be the only state where that stick is being wielded, but I can attest to its use here. Does that not threaten the autonomy of churches to respond in that threatening way?

A minimal gift to any state convention covers the 501c3. I've heard of some dumb moves by denominational employees but this ranks pretty high. Whatever happened to making an appeal for support based on what the soliciting organization does?

I'll have to be educated about it if the state convention can take any action to revoke a church 501c3 cover. I'd be incensed if I got such a letter.

[Dave Roberts]

William, coverage is based on being considered "in friendly cooperation" which is being translated into certain levels of support. The financial pressures on many state conventions have led to virtually empty headquarters buildings that now lease space to other agencies and ministries and still have lots of empty offices. I agree totally that it was a dumb move, and if I received one in any church, I would start the application to get my own approval without denominational support, a reality which community and independent churches have to do to grant tax exemptions, though I've not heard of any recent denials of deductions, even where the exemption has not been legally processed.

[Sandy]

William, I don't disagree with you that the changes have slowed some donations because there is no longer the BGAV provided option. What I am saying reflects a letter that was read to me by a pastor who had received it from the BGAV, threatening them with the loss of their IRS status if thy didn't give more to the BGAV and informing them that they did not qualify for messengers to the annual meeting last year because they chose to send all their gifts to CBF and CBFVA. VA may be the only state where that stick is being wielded, but I can attest to its use here. Does that not threaten the autonomy of churches to respond in that threatening way?

Did this church give anything to the BGAV or did they just send them their check with instructions to forward it to CBF and CBFVA. If they gave any money at all to the BGAV and it was accepted, it wouldn't affect their tax exempt status. As far as messenger allocations go, that would be the state convention's decision. Is there not an option for a church to give to BGAV causes only, without having some of it passed along elsewhere? I understand the idea of requiring churches to contribute in order to participate and attaching a dollar amount or percentage to at least part of the number of messengers they are allowed. State conventions are also autonomous and can determine what criteria constitutes "friendly cooperation." What you describe seems a little too focused on money, but I don't see that it interferes with a church's autonomy. They always have the option to say "No, thank you" and give their money where they want to.

Yes, I know that CBF changed the names and shuffled around the leadership in their reorganization. You can certainly correct me if my perception is wrong but from reading their news sources regarding the Illumination Project, the committee submitted its report to the governing board who adopted and approve it and that was it. It was not voted on by the general assembly at least that is my understanding. And while I realize that the project is much more than just a shift in hiring policy, even a small change like that signals a larger shift in perspective regarding CBF's perspective on homosexual practice and gender identity. So that leads to a couple of questions. Was this a deliberate step taken to move CBF to a position more sympathetic to acceptance of homosexuality or at least a more middle of the road position than the previous hiring policy and previous actions of the Fellowship indicated? And if so, was there an awareness that some of their key partnerships, such as those with the BGCT and BGAV might be affected by the shift? Because the change, as minimal as it may be, required a complete shift of position. Opening the door to allowing even just a few limited positions on the payroll in which being LBGTQ isn't a restriction is still a shift to accepting homosexuality and transgender identity as normative and not sinful. The actual policy, as its critics state, is an insult to both sides. To conservatives, "Some but not all positions" represents complete change of position to affirmation and to those on the left, partial inclusion is really no inclusion.

Perception is the key to understanding. From where I sit and where I've been, there are many more churches within CBF who would not be open to an affirming stance on LGBTQ issues than those which are, and I'd say that for most of them, it's a dealbreaker when it comes to affiliation. Perhaps the most idealistic Baptist can imagine a group of churches cooperating in ministry where there are few restrictions and limiations related to doctrine and practice but this issue is always going to be divisive and anytime there is movement toward becoming "welcoming and affirming," there is a schism. As liberal and leftist as Southern Baptists think the BGCT and BGAV are comparatively, neither of those groups is anywhere close to acceptance of the position CBF took. But I think, for CBF, this will be a good thing. For practical reasons, they need to embrace the Alliance of Baptists, merge leadership and structure and put together a headquarters trimmed of bureaucracy and of attempting to recreate the pre-1979 SBC aristocracy. Be a separate denomination of 300-500 churches, still larger than many Baptist groups, and wrap a unified mission and purpose around core theology that includes the things they want to do, like have women serve as pastors and leaders in churches and ordain gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. Run missions and cooperative ministry on a $6 or $7 million dollar budget without worrying about offending a conservative element that might pull their giving. Pull the multiple, tiny struggling theological schools together, centered around Wake Forest and Baylor and develop the best on-line course delivery system for theological education available so it can be accessed from anywhere.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, CBF historically has followed the advice of folk who have been actively supportive rather than critics who are continually critical from the sidelines. Keep in mind that a keyword in establishing a following has been flexibility something that is next to impossible in a huge layered top down empire.


I agree with you when you say " there are many more churches within CBF who would not be open to an affirming stance on LGBTQ issues than those which are" but I believe you are overly optimistic with, "and I'd say that for most of them, it's a deal breaker when it comes to affiliation." I and a number of Baptist object to supporting American Legion Post through Gambling operations and operating a Bar, however it is not a deal breaker for maintain our affiliation. For myself I continue to support most CBF partners through a single contribution however, I am inclined toward writing more checks and to distribute them our selves. BTW, the recipient of our largest contribution goes to an entity with Welcoming and Affirming Trustees and Administration.

[Dave Roberts]

Ed: Sandy, CBF historically has followed the advice of folk who have been actively supportive rather than critics who are continually critical from the sidelines. Keep in mind that a keyword in establishing a following has been flexibility something that is next to impossible in a huge layered top down empire.


I agree with you when you say " there are many more churches within CBF who would not be open to an affirming stance on LGBTQ issues than those which are" but I believe you are overly optimistic with, "and I'd say that for most of them, it's a deal breaker when it comes to affiliation." I and a number of Baptist object to supporting American Legion Post through Gambling operations and operating a Bar, however it is not a deal breaker for maintain our affiliation. For myself I continue to support most CBF partners through a single contribution however, I am inclined toward writing more checks and to distribute them our selves. BTW, the recipient of our largest contribution goes to an entity with Welcoming and Affirming Trustees and Administration.

I have to agree heartily with Ed. If everyone and every organization with whom I partner must dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" just exactly the way I want them, then I'm going to be in mighty small organizations. I was a participant in the Governance Luncheon of the Governance Board and the Missions and Ministries Councils, and the idea it be a "big tent" organization. The tent is growing especially in the Hispanic Network which is adding churches in Florida and Texas at a fast clip. No, those churches do not check the immigration status of everyone who attends. I also have been in the Decatur offices twice since the Illumination Project changed the hiring policy to one that concentrated on whether or not staff members are Christians, not their sexual orientation. The only difference I see there is a larger percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American faces. In other words, CBF is looking more like the US population. CBF has not fractured as Sandy and William were predicting. It is moving on to plant churches, support Global Missions, provide advocacy ministries especially to fight payday lending, and is moving to be a younger body every year. There are financial challenges that are a part of the American church as a whole, but there is no gloom and doom over the body. It has not instructed a single church on who they need to call or what doctrinal minimums they must hold. We trust each other to act as the people of Christ, but I heard in sermons, addresses, and workshops belief in the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Biblical passages were cited regularly, and evangelism was discussed. There was a lot of hugging in the halls, there were volunteers who picked up and walked babies so their parents could fully participate, there were reminiscences, and I got to meet several of the ministers who are coming on. The most telling thing I heard yesterday in the business session was that CBF's Church Benefits Board participants are, by a large percentage, under the age of 55. I talked with several younger ministers who are in their first church calling, and see that at every meeting, CBF is getting younger. These are my kind of Baptists. Maybe in Texas where Sandy came from, they are trying to recreate the old boys club, but that was not what I have seen in the halls at Birmingham. There were quite a few younger parents pushing strollers at this meeting.

[Dave Roberts]

I witnessed one of the changes at the Wednesday night worship at CBF. I was seated three rows from the back near the center. Paul Baxley, the new CBF Executive Coordinator, was not on the program that night. I looked over to my left and about five rows in front of me. Baxley was 8 rows from the back simply joining in worship. He did not sit in the VIP seating up front but simply took a seat as one of the crowd. I was deeply impressed by his simple act to worship with the gathered assembly.

[JE Pettibone]

I witnessed one of the changes at the Wednesday night worship at CBF. I was seated three rows from the back near the center. Paul Baxley, the new CBF Executive Coordinator, was not on the program that night. I looked over to my left and about five rows in front of me. Baxley was 8 rows from the back simply joining in worship. He did not sit in the VIP seating up front but simply took a seat as one of the crowd. I was deeply impressed by his simple act to worship with the gathered assembly.

Ed: Dave, I have often been a bit Surprised to see folk who are well known CBF personalities sitting in close proximity to where Trudy and I chose to sit. It is a good feeling to know so many of our leaders are real people.

[Dave Roberts]

William, I neglected to answer your question about the church I had referenced for that letter. They had given to the BGAV, but they had not given enough to achieve messenger status. Sorry I missed your question.