New CBF statement

[rlvaughn]

ATLANTA (ABP) -- The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is a "Baptist association of churches and individuals" separate from the Southern Baptist Convention but declines to define itself as a convention or denomination, according to a new statement by CBF leadership.

Evidently the driving force behind this statement is the CBF's attempt to join the Baptist World Alliance. If I remember correctly, wasn't the CBF in its beginnings very adamant that they were not starting another "group" of Baptists, but were rather just providing resources for the disenfranchised? I have been receiving their monthly magazine for years, and that is the way I remember it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Evidently the driving force behind this statement is the CBF's attempt to join the Baptist World Alliance. If I remember correctly, wasn't the CBF in its beginnings very adamant that they were not starting another "group" of Baptists, but were rather just providing resources for the disenfranchised? I have been receiving their monthly magazine for years, and that is the way I remember it.

That's the way I remember it as well. Of course the SBC leadership doesn't want the CBF to do that so the CBF people essentially have two choices: (1) line up with the politics of the SBC leadership or (2) leave.

It looks like the leadership is pushing for the second choice.

[ January 25, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Speedpass]

Originally posted by SaggyWoman:


There have been a good number of dually aligned churches over the last few years, but there seems to be a move towards becoming CBF only.

I know all about it. Many churches in the Raleigh/Durham "triangle" and the Greensboro/High Point/Winston Salem "triad" have ceased supporting the SBC in recent years--and probably many more will follow

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Jimmy Edwards:
I know all about it. Many churches in the Raleigh/Durham "triangle" and the Greensboro/High Point/Winston Salem "triad" have ceased supporting the SBC in recent years--and probably many more will follow

Hello Jimmy,

I live in the Raleigh/Durham area. How many churches would you say constitute the "many" that have ceased supporting the SBC?

Also, I have a question regarding the CBF Statement that started this thread. If the CBF has now declared that it has separated itself completely from the SBC why did it have a booth that the SBC NC State Convention last week?

[ January 25, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[rsr]

The state conventions are not the creatures of the national convention or fellowship.

Churches may belong to the local association or state convention and still not be affiliated with the SBC. Or they may affiliate with both the SBC and CBF, if they choose.

Unless an association or state convention expells them, they are free to associate as they please. So it's no surprise there was a CBF booth at the state convention.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by rsr:
The state conventions are not the creatures of the national convention or fellowship.

Churches may belong to the local association or state convention and still not be affiliated with the SBC. Or they may affiliate with both the SBC and CBF, if they choose.

Unless an association or state convention expells them, they are free to associate as they please. So it's no surprise there was a CBF booth at the state convention.

So let me see if I get what you are saying. According to the CBF statement quoted at the beginning of this tread the CBF is completely unaffiliated with the SBC. However, the CBF, while not affiliated in any way with the SBC, is free to host a booth at SBC State Conventions. That sounds to me like the CBFers want to have their cake and eat it too. If they are not part of the SBC then they have no business at an official SBC function. If we follow this line of reasoning it would be logical to expect to see a booth hosted by the United Methodist Church, or the LDS, etc. welcomed at SBC State Conventions.

[ November 23, 2002, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[rsr]

That's entirely up to the state conventions. In Oklahoma, I think that would be unlikely. In North Carolina, where the CBF has a much stronger presence, it's still a matter of debate.

As the Biblical Recorder said of challenges to a giving plan that sends some money to the CBF:

It is about deciding whether the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina is an autonomous body that makes its own decisions and cooperates by its own volition, or whether it is a state franchise of the SBC and thus subject to the SBC's singular definition of "cooperation."

http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/opinion/2002/11_22_2002/ed221102plan.shtml

 

[Bible-boy]

As most Southern Baptists in NC are aware that the Biblical Distorter, I mean Biblical Recorder , leans in favor of our state's more "moderate brethern" and the CBF we tend not to put much stock in its continued digs at the SBC.

However, I am encouraged by the CBF statement that leads off on this thread. Now they need to just learn to stand on their own and quite troubling the conservative SBC. In other words if they can't cooperate and learn to compromise with the majority of conservative Southern Baptists then they are free to pick up their toys and go home.

[ November 26, 2002, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Good BBII. Then you won't mind if we take Southeastern back.

Joshua

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
Now they need to just learn to stand on their own and quite troubling the conservative SBC.

When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is it you, you troubler of Israel?" He answered, "I have not troubled Israel; but you have, and your father's house, because you have forsaken this commandments of the Lord..."

1 Kings 18:17-18

 

[Speedpass]

BibleboyII, I don't have any precise #s. But I do know that many "big-name" churches in North Carolina have stopped formally supporting the SBC. For example Millbrook in Raleigh, First in Raleigh, First in Henderson, College Park in Greensboro, First in Asheville, to name a few

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Good BBII. Then you won't mind if we take Southeastern back.

Joshua

You are more than welcome to try. I don't think you'll be successful. However, the liberals may learn a thing or two about the inerrancy of the Scripture while on campus here at SEBTS. So I say come on in our doors are always open (at least during normal business hours). Right now I'm the only one here but I think between the Holy Spirit, my Bible, and me that we can hold down the fort.

[ November 24, 2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is it you, you troubler of Israel?" He answered, "I have not troubled Israel; but you have, and your father's house, because you have forsaken this commandments of the Lord..."

1 Kings 18:17-18

Hello Baptist Believer,

Let me see... Ahab = Liberal CBF and its rejection of the inerrant Word of God, and Elijah = Conservative SBC standing for the truth of the inerrant Word of God... No that can't be what you meant. But if we switch the characters/organizations the analogy quickly breaks down thus revealing the problem of quoting Scripture out of context and attempting to twist the Word of God to your own ends.

[ January 25, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Jimmy Edwards:
BibleboyII, I don't have any precise #s. But I do know that many "big-name" churches in North Carolina have stopped formally supporting the SBC. For example Millbrook in Raleigh, First in Raleigh, First in Henderson, College Park in Greensboro, First in Asheville, to name a few

Hello Jimmy,

Thanks for the reply. One thing to keep in mind is that a handful of "big-name" churches that support the CBF does not constitute "many" NC Churches. Remember that the average size Baptist church in the U.S. is actually quite small in number with membership between 50 and 150. It is the combined effort of many of these "average sized" 50 to 150 member churches that makes the SBC so strong.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
Hello Baptist Believer,

Let me see... Ahab = Liberal CBF and its rejection of the inerrant Word of God, and Elijah = Conservative SBC standing for the truth of the inerrant Word of God... No that can't be what you meant. But if we switch the characters/organizations the analogy quickly breaks down thus and revealing the problem of quoting Scripture out of context and attempting to twist the Word of God to your own ends.

Hmm... I didn't apply or twist scripture -- I just quoted it.

You mentioned that the CBF is "troubling" the SBC. I just quoted a verse or two where I've heard a similar statement. I just find it interesting that you see the CBF as the "troubler" of the SBC. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[ January 25, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Hmm... I didn't apply or twist scripture -- I just quoted it.

Ah, but you quoted it for a reason, right?

You mentioned that the CBF is "troubling" the SBC. I just quoted a verse or two where I've heard a similar statement. I just find it interesting that you see the CBF as the "troubler" of the SBC. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I find all Christians who reject the inerrancy of the Bible and who embrace liberal theology troubling because they distort the Word of God. You know, kind of like the way that Paul and the other Apostles and early church fathers found false teachers troubling and sought to warn against their heretical teachings.

I find it interesting that in the context of the discussion that we are having that you chose to quote my statment with the words "...quit troubling the SBC...." followed by a quote from the Bible that said that Ahab falsely accused Elijah of being "the troubler of Israel" with no other comment. Did you not mean to imply or draw the conclusion that either I or the SBC in general equate to Ahab and the CBF equates to Elijah being accused as a troubler? It certainly looked that way. If that was not your intent in making the post with the quote of my statement followed by the 1 Kings passage would you mind explaining exactly what you did intend or what you hoped to accomplish?

[ January 25, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
I find it interesting that in the context of the discussion that we are having that you chose to quote my statment with the words "...quit troubling the SBC...." followed by a quote from the Bible that said that Ahab falsely accused Elijah of being "the troubler of Israel" with no other comment. Did you not mean to imply or draw the conclusion that either I or the SBC in general equate to Ahab and the CBF equates to Elijah being accused as a troubler? It certainly looked that way. If that was not your intent in making the post with the quote of my statement followed by the 1 Kings passage would you mind explaining exactly what you did intend or what you hoped to accomplish?

In my opinion, I find the claim that the 'CBF is the troubler of the SBC' to be ludicrous since the SBC (especially Baptist Press) spends an enormous amount of time bashing the CBF and the CBF has essentially been ignoring the SBC for the last couple of years now. That perspective on your allegation, coupled with the use of the word "troubler" (not a common expression in my world), immediately brought to mind Ahab's accusation.

I merely wanted to point out how ludicrous the statement was by presenting a classic case of an unjust accusation of being a troublemaker.

The reason I posted without comment is that I wanted you to struggle with the verse a bit and consider it from all possible perspectives and see if "the shoe fits".

No, the SBC does not necessarily correspond to wayward Israel, you as Ahab, and CBF as Elijah except in the sense that I think you are making the same false assessment of blame. I've been following the CBF fairly closely for the last five years and the only time they really have anything to say about the SBC is when they have to respond against false charges or false/twisted charges in Baptist Press.

 

[Bible-boy]

The CBF and the Mainstream Baptist Network consider one another to be "Friends and Allies" in their common struggle to oppose the conservative majority of the SBC. As I have noted elsewhere on these forums the Mainstream Baptist Network lists the CBF on its website under the heading "Friends and Allies."

The Mainstream Baptist Network organization in the state of North Carolina is called Mainstream Baptists of North Carolina (MBNC). Recently Texas moderate David R. Currie sent a memo to members of North Carolina CBF/MBNC. Mr Currie's memo is quoted in full below:

Mainstream Baptist Network
915-659-4102 P.O. Box 3301
San Angelo, TX 76902-3301

MEMO
TO: NORTH CAROLINA BAPTISTS
FROM: DAVID R. CURRIE, MBN CONSULTANT
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2002
SUBJECT: MBN MEETING IN CHARLOTTE AND YOUR FUTURE

FIRST, I want to invite each of you to attend the Mainstream Baptist Network Convocation in Charlotte, February 15-16, 2002. The theme of our meeting is "A Firm Foundation of Freedom in Christ." It will be an inspiring meeting and a great time of fellowship. We have a great line-up of speakers; highlighted by your own, Dr. Roy Smith, as our banquet speaker Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. Details are enclosed.

SECOND, I want to communicate frankly to you about the North Carolina Baptist Convention. Let me say up front, the Mainstream Baptist Network is an autonomous organization just as Mainstream Baptists of North Carolina is an autonomous organization. These words are mine. I’m not "running this by" Mainstream for their approval or by anyone else. I’ve been fighting the "evil" of fundamentalism for 14 years. I do what I want and say what I feel. The following will be straightforward.

You lost last year and are very disappointed, which is understandable. HEAR ME CLEARLY, YOU CAN WIN AND YOU WILL WIN. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO GOD’S KINGDOM THAT YOU DO WIN THE BATTLE FOR LEADERSHIP OF THE NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST CONVENTION. You have wonderful institutions that need to remain free to follow God’s leadership without having to answer to a bunch of Pharisees.

Fundamentalism is a perversion of the Gospel. Read the Bible. Jesus made this clear. If you as North Carolina Baptists can preserve your convention, then the resources and majority of the churches will be used to honor God. People who preach love, grace and redemption, not condemnation, will fill the pulpits. The real question is, "What kind of preaching do you want your grandchildren hearing – Jerry Falwell type of preaching or Randall Lolley type of preaching?" That is what is at stake.

I am not an opponent of Fairness and Shared Leadership, but the reality is that North Carolina will be a state convention that practices Baptist principles only if Mainstream Baptists are in leadership of the convention. If you don’t believe me, just look at Missouri, Georgia or Florida. You must win the convention and then you can be fair and include others.

Paige Patterson and his followers do not want to cooperate with you. They do not want to have anything to do with you. As soon as he and his followers have control, they will fire people, institute creedalism, deny local church autonomy, take away your giving options, etc. The only way you deal with Paige Patterson is for you to have more people at the convention then [sic] he does year after year. Eventually he will form his own state convention. He will run you out of your convention without your persistence to the cause.

Here are some first steps to make sure you are successful:

1. Come to the MBN Convocation and let it inspire you. Allow God to speak to you and give you vision and strength. Return the reservation form in the enclosed envelope.

2. This letter is going to 4,760 people. It should be going to at least 10,000 names. Fill out the enclosed "Friends who should be on the MBN mailing list" and put it in the envelope.

3. Take out your checkbook and write a check for at least $50 (many of you can afford $100 or $500) and make it out to Mainstream Baptists of North Carolina. Put it in the envelope as well.

4. Make a commitment now to be in Winston-Salem on November 11-13, 2002 and to take someone with you who did not attend this past year. Sign the commitment card and return it with the "Friends" form and your check to our office in the enclosed envelope. It is three days a year—make the commitment NOW. Reserve a hotel room NOW. Enlist someone to go with you NOW.

Mail the envelope to Mainstream Baptist Network, P. O. Box 3301, San Angelo, TX 76902. Everything will be processed, names to the MBN mailing list added and new addresses, money and forms for Mainstream Baptists of North Carolina sent to them.

This is what we will do in return here at MBN:

1. We will send you a monthly MBN North Carolina members’ newsletter.

2. I will accept EVERY speaking invitation that I am given to speak in North Carolina during 2002.
If you ask me, I will come. That is my promise to you. The key is to involve and inspire lay persons. Together, we will do it. We will help line up other speakers in association with Mainstream North Carolina Baptists if you so desire.

3. I will work with North Carolina Mainstream as much and as often as they ask me. I refuse to allow Paige Patterson to run your state without expending every ounce of energy I possess!

NOW WHY WILL YOU WIN?

1. Last year, Mainstream North Carolina was young, was not well defined, was not completely organized and lacked money. Please send money and names as suggested in the above information and that will change the outcome. I am very impressed with Don Gordon and the institutional leadership I have met in North Carolina.

2. You have a larger number of institutions publicly helping you, than we had in Texas. To be honest, only Baylor University helped us publicly. These institutions are critical and will make a difference.

3. You have a highly educated and motivated laity. From what I have seen, the laity in North Carolina is ready to respond to leadership and action. They know what it means to be a real Baptist and they know any Baptist organization must be focused on Christ in order to fulfill the Great Commission.

All those receiving this letter are God’s hope for North Carolina Baptists. The majority of people in any church do not understand what has happened and sadly do not care. That is reality. But you know and you care. I look forward to hearing from you and I especially want to see you in Charlotte, Feb. 15-16 for the first annual Mainstream Convocation.

Source: The Conservative Record, Volume XV, Number 1, September 2002. This information may be found on-line at http://www.ncbaptist.com then see the news archives link for October 2002.

So now we see that Mr. Currie refers to those of us who contend for the inerrancy of the Bible and the fundamentals of the faith as holding to a "perversion of the gospel."

I would also encourage you to visit http://www.ncbaptist.com and read the current November 2002 on-line issue of The Conservative Record in its entirety for a further analysis of what is happening in Texas, Missouri, and Virginia that is affecting Baptist life outside of North Carolina. By doing so you will gain an understanding of how the CBF/Mainstream groups are attempting to influence the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC) with their moderate/liberal agenda. These are the troubles that I maintain that those who embrace the CBF and Mainstream Baptist Network and liberal theology cause in SBC life.

[ November 25, 2002, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

In my opinion, I find the claim that the 'CBF is the troubler of the SBC' to be ludicrous since the SBC (especially Baptist Press) spends an enormous amount of time bashing the CBF and the CBF has essentially been ignoring the SBC for the last couple of years now. That perspective on your allegation, coupled with the use of the word "troubler" (not a common expression in my world), immediately brought to mind Ahab's accusation.

Regarding the CBF "essentially ignoring the SBC" see my comments below.

I merely wanted to point out how ludicrous the statement was by presenting a classic case of an unjust accusation of being a troublemaker.

Sorry but the statement is not ludicrous at all. The conservative majority of the SBC constantly has to defend the inerrancy of the Bible at various state conventions and at the annual SBC from attacks by liberal theologians who support the CBF and Mainstream Baptist Network.

The reason I posted without comment is that I wanted you to struggle with the verse a bit and consider it from all possible perspectives and see if "the shoe fits".

Nope. It's way to small for my foot.

I've been following the CBF fairly closely for the last five years and the only time they really have anything to say about the SBC is when they have to respond against false charges or false/twisted charges in Baptist Press.

Really, is that so? If the CBF really does ingore the SBC except to defend itself against "false/twisted charges in the Baptist Press" then why does its official website feature the following articles?

http://www.cbfonline.org/newsstand/abpstory.cfm?newsid=3353

http://www.cbfonline.org/forum/viewpoint.cfm?forumid=2055

http://www.cbfonline.org/forum/viewpoint.cfm?forumid=2053

It seems to me that the CBF website is going out of its way to make digs at the IMB and the SBC. Is there a specific Baptist Press article that prompted the CBF to write an article defending a former IMB missionary who was dismissed because he "persistently advocated doctrinal opinions inconsistent with the Baptist Faith and Message" while he served as a seminary professor in Brazil?

I don't think so. It looks like they simply chased down an isolated story in an attempt the sully the name of the IMB and the SBC. However, I could be wrong about that. Can you show me a specific Baptist Press article that somehow linked the dissmissal of this missionary to the CBF? By the way, the SBC nor the IMB need to worry about defending such actions when they are simply seeking to ensure that the missionaries, who are supported by the conservative majority of the SBC, represent the doctrines and theology embraced by that majority.

[ November 26, 2002, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Bible-boy]

In response to the BWA rejection of its application for membership the CBF made the following statements:

"The CBF council responded with a statement listing 20 indicators that the Fellowship is "no longer integral" to the SBC, including the fact that the SBC has in effect recognized CBF as a separate entity by refusing to accept funding from the Fellowship for the past seven years.
The CBF also has its own organizational structure, missionaries, foundation and benefits board and endorses chaplains, according to the statement. More than 150 CBF churches have no formal membership in the SBC. The United Nations recognizes the CBF as a non-governmental organization, and several Baptist state conventions allow churches to give to CBF through their budgets.
Consistent with earlier statements, however, leaders of the Fellowship insisted the moderate breakaway group is not a denomination.
'Though fully independent of the SBC or any other union, we do not declare that we are a denomination or convention,' the statement says. 'Rather, we are Baptist by conviction, and we are a partnership of churches and individuals by philosophy. We have chosen instead to define ourselves as a "fellowship," which means that we are a "Baptist association of churches and individuals" in partnership for the advancement of God's kingdom.'" Source: http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/10_28/pages/cbf.html .

Again, I must ask if all of this is true and the CBF claims that it is completely and entirely unconnected to the SBC why does the CBF actively participate by hosting booths and asking CBF affiliated churches to send as many messengers as possible to the various state conventions, which support the SBC, as indicated by the memo from Mr. Currie quoted above? If the CBF is it own organization then let it now stand on its own.

[ November 26, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]