Seminary trustees to confront president over audit, management issues

Sounds like things went as well as they could have gone, given the circumstances that are publicly known.

 

The one thing I will say in response -- for it is plainly evident that there are several Dilday supporters in this conversation -- and I will get nowhere with those who already have their minds made up, even when they argue FOR some of the liberal issues that caused Dilday's removal from SWTS in the first place.

The one thing I wish to say is that the CBF is NOT a stand-alone entity. It remains fully SBC, and in fact, it exists as part of the SBC and drains resources, starts battles between associational and state convention churches, and presses -- always leftward -- in the SBC. The stated reason for some to belong to the CBF is missions work, yet I find no missions work coming out of the CBF. They claim that they do not wish for their funds to be applied to the cooperative program and claim they know better how to spend those funds, but the result is a bunch of moderate selfish churches that play their own game citing "baptist liberty" over and above any cooperative effort, thus belying their own namesake, the COOPERATIVE Baptist Fellowship.

The entire affair smacks of disingenuous efforts and those supporting the moderate to liberal agenda are not growing, but like all moderate and liberal religious entities, are in fact shrinking.

Dilday is influential in this system. It did not form to support him. He helped to raise it up to rail against the SBC, but neither did/does Dilday have the courage to strike out alone in their own efforts (realizing that they would fail!) nor does the CBF either have the courage to divorce itself from the SBC. In the end, there is then a splinter group that operates under the greater umbrella of the SBC while constantly fighting against it from within -- still having the privilege of sending messengers to the Convention. That, in and of itself, should make it clear that there is something else afoot than is often shared in these sort of debates.

 

I am amazed to read this. Perhaps I am missing your point.

The CBF is a completely different organization.

I don't understand this unless you believe the SBC should have all monies collected by churches who are affiliated with the SBC. Since most churches are affiliated with multiple organizations (local associations, state conventions, national conventions, and sometimes international organizations), funds are distributed according to the will of the congregation among the various organizations the church wishes to support. Whether we like it or not, churches have the right to give their money to whomever they wish.

The CBF does not rule the SBC or the churches.

Can you give me an example of how you think this works?

The CBF has an extensive mission work program with missionaries all over the world. I'm stunned you didn't know that.

It is their right to decide what to do with their money.

What a broad and condemning statement!

The CBF is not a part of the SBC. There are a number of churches that are aligned with both the CBF and the SBC, but that is not the choice of the CBF or the SBC - those decisions are made by churches. You should be blaming churches for not dropping the SBC, not the CBF. My church is aligned with both the CBF and the SBC. We support mission work through both. It is not a matter of courage, but of interest in supporting a wide range of missionary efforts. Members and former members of our congregation are working with both the SBC and CBF throughout the world. Furthermore, the CBF missionary work tends to be in areas were the SBC does not have as strong of a presence, so can put dollars to work through the work.

The CBF does not send messengers to the Convention. If the SBC doesn't want churches that align with it not be aligned with the CBF, they should have the courage to make a rule about it and face the consequences.

And frankly, I know lots of CBF people and very few of them area really very interested in the SBC anymore. In my church, we rarely talk about the SBC unless it involves missions or something about the seminary. I don't even think we send messengers to the Convention anymore.

I think you have misled about the CBF since you don't seem to know that (1) the CBF is not a part of the SBC, (2) the CBF has a missions program, designed by Keith Parks, former SBC mission board president, many years ago, and (3) that the CBF does not control the churches.

 

I stand corrected... But not on CBF policy, only on the fact that they have in fact ceeded from the SBC. Last time I checked they were fully immersed in the SBC by having most of their claimed 1800 churches be dually aligned, which means, in fact, that messengers ARE being sent to the SBC by CBF churches.

About some of their distinctives:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/cash-women-pastors.html

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2849

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_cbf.htm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

http://reluctantbaptist.com/2011/06/28/an-open-letter-to-the-cooperative-baptist-fellowship/

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=227

I could go on and on with this, but the rest will only echo what has already been said.

 

It is common knowledge that CBF inflates its numbers with churches that do not know they are being counted as one of them.

 

SBC Pot, meet mister CBF Kettle!

 

uh.....no.

 

Rev. Tom Ascol, head of the Southern Baptist Founders organization, to the Missouri Baptist paper:

"We’re not 16-whatever million strong. We’re a sham in our numbers."

http://www.mbcpathway.com/2010/03/ascol-sees-need-for-integrity-repentance-renewal/

 

There is a difference in failing to clear our member rolls and claiming churches who want nothing or know nothing about being in the CBF.

 

Indeed, as if there is moral equivalence in starting a liberal splinter group, causing dually-aligned churches where sometimes the members do not even understand that which they are aligned with (and who believe themselves still fully SBC members) and where un-biblical concepts are introduced as normal Baptist life cannot stand in equivalence with "inflating numbers" because of poor record keeping.

 

Yes, our church was listed surreptitiously as a 'Founders-Friendly Church' on that Founders faction website. Also on the Farese directory, 9Marks, etc. We only found out about it after quite a few contentious Calvinists became members and started in with their lingo, agenda, etc. When confronted, the (soon to be ex-) pastor tried to say he didn't need the congregation's permission to align us with these 'Reformed' groups. And in clearing our name from these sites, one site admitted that this was not an unusual situation for them.

 

That's good to know. It seemed as if you had been misled.

However, I wish the experience of discovering you were wrong about a couple of basic aspects of the CBF had translated into being caution and humility regarding making rash judgments about the CBF based on less than credible sources, Ike most of the ones you provided in you last post.

The churches are also fully SBC. If that's the way you're going to define things, then I could just as fairly assert that SBC churches are sending messengers to the CBF annual Assemblies. So what?

Furthermore, lots of churches that are aligned with both the CBF and SBC don't actually send anyone to the SBC Conventions. Our church rarely does.

Most of these aren't actually distinctives, but I'll deal with them one-by-one.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the CBF, but I'm doing this in the interest of telling the truth and not allowing misunderstandings and lies to stand unchallenged.

Yeah, this is not a distinctive of the CBF. This is just a wrong-headed, poorly-considered plan by a state fellowship, not the national body.

I think you'll find a lot of CBF people disagree with this position.

This is a somewhat balanced perspective, except for its conflation of "inerrancy" with a literalistic method of interpretation. One can be an inerrantist and not interpret the scriptures "literally" as well as not be an inerrantist and interpret the scripture "literally."

Furthermore, the questions of the ordination of women, "theological conservatism" and inerrancy were only three issues out of many. You will find numerous CBF churches and individuals who differ from the positions described here.

Do you realize that this actually undercuts your assertion that the CBF affirms homosexual activity? It is actually rare in the CBF.

This "definitions" is not worth the time it takes to read. It is written by someone with an axe to grind. Moreover, I'm stunned that you are using The Urban Dictionary as a reference. If you look up Southern Baptist (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Southern+baptist) you'll find similar "definitions that explicitly claim Southern Baptists are KJVO, uniformly racist, hypocritical, nearly toothless, etc.

It think it's clear you are simply trolling for negative content, not carefully researching things Iike you normally do. You've demonstrated you're normally much smarter and careful, than this.

I tend to agree with most of what is in this letter. Some folks in the CBF are still paying too much attention to the SBC, defining themselves by what they are not. The SBC tends to do the same thing.



Now the article you quote here from Russell Moore sounds quite compelling. This was written back in his heyday of muckraking for Baptist Press where he was doing everything he could to misrepresent the CBF in numerous articles. He was a master at taking half-truths, out-of-context quotes, and misrepresentations by others and twisting them into hit pieces. In this article, he even pulls out the trusty "the Bible is just a book" lie the Baptist Press perpetrated.

You'll notice that Moore makes no distinction between the opinions of individuals and the positions of the CBF, nor between contents of books or literature for sale or distribution by individuals and venders and the official positions of the CBF. If the SBC were evaluated by the same standards, someone could also write a damning hit piece.

I've had the opportunity to investigate Moore's so-called reporting during this era, and it was reprehensible. If you care to review what I found, you can see it here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=16767

Looking at what you have here:

1. You have something stupid a state body of the CBF is doing. That's regrettable, but that tells us very little about the positions or attitudes of the larger CBF family
2. A fairly balanced article which is too brief and conflates inerrancy with literal interpretation
3. A fair article which completely undercuts your assertions
4. A wildly inaccurate and condemning definition from a demonstrably noncredible source
5. An opinion piece which actually doesn't do as much as you might think to condemn the CBF, although it does expose an issue.
6. And a screed by Russell Moore who, at least at that time, was not reporting reliably or honestly (telling the whole truth) about the CBF.

 

You've demonstrated here that you are woefully uninformed about the CBF, so don't be so sure that you know more about the CBF than the members of a CBF church.

FWIW, members of churches who are dully aligned with the SBC and CBF are fully CBF and SBC.

 

Quite the overstatement

 

I was fully immersed in the CBF issue and well understand what happened and is yet happening. That is about all that I have left to say about the issue.

About Dr. Russ Moore, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm almost sure you are thinking of someone else. I've known him since he was a grad student and he is nothing except upright. When he was first married he lived next door to us in the gospel ghetto -- seminary housing in Louisville. We taught Maria how to sled ride. We were there when they suffered through the challenges of being a childless couple and cried with them. We were grateful to God when they were able to adopt two babies from Russia. We were shocked and awed when God allowed Maria to bear her own child, then another. We went to Mississippi to dig out his grandfather when Katrina burried his home in the muck of the disaster up to the second floor.

Sorry... You are obviously talking about someone else and drawing slights that do not match the person I know like a brother...

 

Yet you have completely failed to engage any of the points I have made and have, to a limited degree, admitted you were wrong - to your credit.

There is no evidence that you actually do understand the issues, but it is certain your right to withdraw from the discussion.

His name is on the article, so I have to assume it is the same guy unless someone is rewriting his articles for him and publishing them under his name (which does happen sometimes).

We have one least one mutual friend and I understand he is a good guy, although I don't think I've ever met him personally.

That's wonderful. Everyone needs friends like that. I wouldn't mind knowing him myself.

I can only judge his work on the basis of the facts. His writing does not match the facts and seems to be designed to mislead. I don't know if someone has modified his work or if he is responsible for what was written, but I was simply commenting on the articles themselves and his body of work during that period.

Why don't you ask him about it? Show him my analysis of his article regarding his visit to the Fort Worth CBF General Assembly and ask him if I provided a fair analysis. I would be very interested in his opinion. I stand by my work, does he?

As I said previously, I'm not a fan of the CBF and I have very little to do with them. But I am interested in telling the truth.

 

I really have no argument that I can make with you, for virtually any word I use will be interpreted in some other fashion by you -- that is the nature of a liberal -- parsing words and reinterpreting doctrines through a lens other than the Word of God. That is something that you argee with when I posted it above.

The error that I admitted was that the CBF had indeed separated itself from the SBC fully. The reason I made that error was that I have not yet found the PURE CBF congregation that is not also dually aligned with the SBC. Perhaps yours is, and perhaps some others are, but all the congregations I've seen and worked with that identified with the CBF also identified themselves as SBC congregations and that number runs into the hundreds.

I cannot even begin to speak to the troubles and trials brought to pastors who have inhereted these liberal congregations. I have sat with so many student pastors who were eaten alive by congregations that re-defined almost every tenet of Baptist doctrine held throughout the history of Baptists -- all in favor of a pro-anthropocentric views.

Those others here that know what I am talking about are in agreement. Some probably have no clue, and they chime in on arguments without really grasping concepts based on key words used in the debate. Such is the case I find generally here when this sort of issue crops up.

At the end of the day, we have somewhere close to 1800 Baptist congregations, most of whom are dually aligned with the SBC, who are making noise, disrupting associations and state conventions, and who have yet to accurately lay out what they are FOR. That (admitted) fact stands as it is.