I would observe a couple of pejorative shots, here, as well as one in the post of Joseph of Ark. What exactly does one mean by "centrally focussed (sic)"? That usage is nothing more than a 'catch phrase", for the fact that one disagrees with some today. And what exactly does one mean about being "irrelevant to Biblical Christianity"? That's another 'catch phrase, IMO. If dissemination of the message is irrelevant, then so is everything else we do, as Christians. That is not the same as to claim perfection, in any manner whatsoever.
And I also strongly disagee with the phrase "Fundamentalist takeover", as well. If anything, this was a "taking back" to a 'Biblical position', at least concerning the nature of Scripture, among other things, consistent with that of such as Boyce, Broaddus, the Manlys - both father and son, Dagg, Fuller, Howell, and Mell, some of the 'leading lights', from the 1840's beginning of the SBC, thru the start of the twentieth century. The fact that there was no 'food fight' over the subject, did not mean it was not there, witness the departure of C. H. Toy, and Southern Seminary.
Still, I do also stongly disagree with some of the "politics" that I have seen displayed by all sides in the last 25 years, or so.
However, 'Joe of Ark.' :laugh: is entirely correct on one thing. It really does not matter, I would assume, for unless "the ABCUSA" is far different in polity from any other Baptist Churches I have ever known, any Baptist church can affiliate with any organization she wants, that will have her. The CBF, although I would disagree with the 'general theology' that many of it's affiliated churches tend to follow, is not an "ecclesiastical hierarchy", but an association of Baptist churches, many of which still also affiliate with the SBC, as well, in some ways.
I would imagine there are some churches that also affiliate with both the SBC and ABCUSA, and would not be surprised that some may affiliate with all three groups, although I know of none specifically.
The reason this matters not, is that these varied groups are at the "bottom of the heap", simply because they are Baptist. The local church is at 'the top of the food chain', and everything proceeds from that, not the other way around. :thumbsup: (Is that idea that difficult to comprehend, for some? :BangHead: ) My own local church, the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, was gathered in 1782. She has affiliated with the SBC, from it's earliest days, and was around for over 60 years before there was any SBC. We were there 55 years before the KBC was founded in 1837. We were there a few years when Elkhorn Association, the first 'Association' west of the Appalachain Mountins was formed. And we were a part of it all. But not one of these can or ever could tell us who we could affiliate or associate with. "We's Baptists!" That is a part of what makes us so.
The OP was my own 'College Pastor' of the UK BSU more years ago than either of us like to admit, probably. I suspect I am still more conservative than he, unless he has moved in that dirrection some over these years, 'cause "I ain't moved!", as the old farmer said to his bride while driving along. I was more 'conservative/fundamentalist' in those days than he, and long before the "conservative resurgence" controversies in the SBC. We differed some, but without the vitrol too often evidenced today. Vitrol, from any position, is not a necessary requirement, "just 'cause 'We's Baptists!'!".
FTR, I cannot speak for any others but would think I, at least, am not entirely clueless. And Jack Matthews has a great post, that I did not read prior to 'editing', but definitely agree with his last post.
Ed
raying::thumbsup: