News: Less Conservative Baptists Meet in Charlotte This Week

Yet another example of a double standard by a moderator!

 

One of my concerns was a line in the original post:
"...and doesn't issue official positions on homosexuality."
Should the church have no official positions then on adultery, stealing or murder?
I go with Joseph on this one.

 

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) is not a church, it is a Fellowship of churches that work together for educational and mission projects.

Individual churches are almost certain to have stances on these issues, but the Fellowship does not dictate theological stances to the individual churches.

 

While I have no desire to get heavily involved in this ad nauseam discussion, I would take issue with this statement:

Individual churches are almost certain to have stances on these issues, but the Fellowship does not dictate theological stances to the individual churches.

I have often stated in other discussions over the CBF that the organization does indeed have theological parameters (eg., there are no active homosexuals serving in a leadership position in the group, nor are there any homosexual missionaries who have been commissioned by the group). The CBF simply chooses to demarcate itself at a different place than the SBC (the old "our parameters are right - yours are wrong" mentality that the CBF raves about in the SBC). For anyone to suggest otherwise is simply misleading.

 

Please read what I wrote again.

“The Fellowship does not dictate theological stances to the individual churches.” For instance, churches are free to have female pastors or not have female pastors without being considered out of step with the Fellowship. That’s quite a different situation than with the SBC.

For the CBF not to have elected homosexuals to leadership positions or commissioned homosexual missionaries is a different subject than what I was addressing.

Regarding your statement in relation to the CBF hiring of staff members and sending of missionaries, here is a portion of a report from the Biblical Recorder from 10/20/2000:

During an Oct. 13 session in Atlanta, council members approved the motion from a smaller advisory council that affirms "the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a women and celibacy in singleness." It also states that "because of this organizational value, (CBF) does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice."
The statement says CBF opposes "the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual."
But, it acknowledges "the love and grace of God for all people, both those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not." (see http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/news/10_20_2000/cbf.html)

I appreciate your comments because they reminded me of the organizational principle that CBF adopted a few years ago regarding homosexuality. I only further undermines Joseph's rash and inaccurate allegations.

 

Could a church have a homosexual pastor and still be in "fellowship" with the CBF? What about a pedophile pastor?

Again the CBF has parameters. They simply differ from where the SBC has set its parameters.

 

Your jump from homosexuality to pedophila is dully noted.

 

Could a church have a homosexual pastor and still be in "fellowship" with the CBF?</font>[/QUOTE]Possibly, but I do not know of any such situation.

Probably not since pedophilia is illegal. (This is a foolish question! )

As far as I know, no church with a known pedophile pastor has approached the CBF regarding membership. You seem to be making the case that the CBF is concerned about morality -- again, I'd agree with you. Which just continues to disprove Joseph's allegations.

Again, the CBF does have a mission statement that is a guide for the organization (see http://www.cbfonline.org/about/mission.cfm), but the mission statement is not used as an "instrumental of accountability" for the churches.

If a church doesn't like the mission statement, it is unlikely they will want to participate in CBF.

Have you ever been to an annual general assembly of CBF? If not, I suggest you go and participate in the assembly meetings and some of the breakout sessions. I think you would gain a much clearer picture of the nature and philosophy of the CBF.

 

You make a link here that I did not. I was simply showing that the CBF also has its own doctrinal and practical parameters.

So you are suggesting that a church with a homosexual pastor would be accepted into the fellowship of the CBF? Recent discussions in the CBF over this issue might suggest the group is not as accepting as one might propose.

You may call it foolish, but it proves my point: the CBF has parameters. They simply draw the line at a different place than the SBC.

My argument has never been that the CBF is not concerned with any level of morality. I have simply suggested they draw a larger circle around themselves, but it is a circle nonetheless. The CBF simply broadens the parameters, but in the end, the defining marks are still present.

When a truly controversial issue arises (such as a homosexual pastor, etc.) then we will see if it is used as an instrument of accountability or not.

Personal question for you: if a church with a bisexual pastor sought fellowship with the CBF, do you believe they should be accepted?

And if a church does not like the BF&M2K .....

Same logic -- different parameters

I will place it on my list of meetings I would like to attend ... just below Hyles' Pastors School

 

I specifically asked Daniel Vestal this question (after the divisive vote on the hiring policy) and he said very clearly that churches like ours are still welcome in the CBF.

Joshua

 

So you are suggesting that a church with a homosexual pastor would be accepted into the fellowship of the CBF? </font>[/QUOTE]I’m not “suggesting” anything. I said “possibly”. I don't know for sure.

There seem to be some in CBF who want to force CBF to take a position on the matter. There may well be a decision in the future that will put the CBF on one side or another. But the purpose of the CBF is not to make doctrinal stands. Rather, it is a fellowship of churches gathered around the purposes of theological education and mission work.

You may call it foolish, but it proves my point: the CBF has parameters. They simply draw the line at a different place than the SBC. </font>[/QUOTE]Joseph was the one who took the position that the CBF did not care “one whit” about morality. I pointed out that the CBF indeed cares about morality. You seem to be arguing a point I made at the very beginning of this thread.

Okay, then you are also arguing against the allegation that Joseph made.

That’s probably a fair statement, but I still not sure that you understand the very loose organizational structure of CBF.

When a truly controversial issue arises (such as a homosexual pastor, etc.) then we will see if it is used as an instrument of accountability or not. </font>[/QUOTE]

Yes, we will see.

Since I don’t consider myself a CBF member, it’s not my call. But since you asked, I don’t know exactly what you mean by a “bisexual” pastor. If the pastor is attracted to both genders but is either celibate or in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, I don’t have a problem with it at all.

 

I do understand its loose nature and therein lies the CBF's inherent danger. They are so concerned with not being "like" the SBC (which as I have shown they actually are) that they are placing themselves in a position that could (if it has not done so already) threaten their doctrinal and practical integrity.

You know exactly what I mean.

Do you believe the CBF should accept into its "fellowship" the church of a practicing homosexual (or bisexual etc.) pastor?

If you answer no they should not, then you follow the same logic as the present SBC leadership.

Same process -- different lines

 

But why not a shoplifter? Most of those caught in pedophila are not homosexual and it is improper to link the two, even if the link is underlying, which is what I felt you did. If you say that was not your intent, then that is good enough for me, dropping subject and moving on.

 

Since we are now on page 3, this thread will close no sooner than 11:00 p.m. ET by one of the moderators. Thank you.

SheEagle9/11
Moderator

 

Which in essence is why Vestal could be considered CBF's greatest strength and weakness at the same time.

 

I do understand its loose nature and therein lies the CBF's inherent danger. They are so concerned with not being "like" the SBC (which as I have shown they actually are) that they are placing themselves in a position that could (if it has not done so already) threaten their doctrinal and practical integrity. </font>[/QUOTE]You seem to assume that I am a zealous CBF supporter. I am not. That’s why I don’t consider myself a member of CBF (although I technically am a member from the CBF’s perspective since I have given a small amount of funding to help defray the costs of the General Assemblies I have attended over the years – I participated in some Breakout sessions and I thought it was only appropriate to help support those sessions).

I agree with you. And it might surprise you to know that I believe Joshua agrees with you as well. (We discussed this subject sometime last summer.)

The reluctance of the CBF to take a few foundational positions has made it an easy target for attackers from the SBC and has hurt its mission.

That’s why I’m thankful the Baptist General Convention of Texas has maintained a balance of autonomy for the local church and a confession of faith that is clear yet allows some biblical flexibility (the 1963 BF&M).

You know exactly what I mean. </font>[/QUOTE] I don’t appreciate your insinuation.

I don’t know if your definition of “bisexual” means that someone is merely attracted to persons of both sexes or is actively participating in sexual activity with both sexes. Since I view all sexual sin (including heterosexual sexual acts outside of marriage) as being equally sinful, the question of being involved in active sexual sin is irrelevant to issues of attraction. If a person is celibate, then there is no issue whatsoever.

I believe that the Fellowship has the right to do what it wants.

If I considered myself a member of the Fellowship, I would not want the Fellowship to admit churches that affirm the normalization of homosexual unions or affirmed sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage.

No, I am not because I will not join CBF because of the lack of a doctrinal confession.

Since you bring up the SBC leadership, I think the SBC leadership has every right to change the Baptist Faith and Message any way they want if they can get the annual convention hyped up enough to vote for it, but that does not make it doctrinally sound.

My main issue with the SBC leadership is the lack of character and morality it has displayed for many years through its campaign of deception and guilt by association.

My main issue with the SBC itself is the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message – I believe it is doctrinally flawed and has turned into a creed.

 

Well it's nearly closing time and Joseph hasn't responded at all to the challenges to his faulty allegations.

Even SBCbyGrace makes the point that the CBF is concerned about morals and I think everyone can tell that the Bible matters to CBF people.

Oh well.

 

Don't let the door hit CBF in their collective butt on the way out.

 

They left a long time ago.