BWA votes to extend membership to CBF

The way I understand it, the CBF is little more than a theological refugee camp for those disgruntled with the SBC and its conservative takeback (it was never a takeover).

 

True...

 

Are there any figures that show how many SBC churches have moved to the CBF? How many churches have the CBF planted from scratch?

I am not knocking either denomination, I would be interested to see if the CBF is growing from existing churches attaching to it and which denominations are losing fellowships to the CBF.

I dont think that the CBF are operating in Australia as yet.

 

I remain disappointed by the conflict and fear that the SBC will now pull out of the BWA. I hope that will not happen because together great things can be done for God.

Mainstream Baptists has posted my commentary on the issue:
article

 

A number of foreign Baptist entities and been irritated by the latest actions of the SBC and have decided to go against the SBC and ask stay out. Some who left the SBC as missionaries are being supported by the foreign agencies.

 

Kaylor, the Scriptures teach that unity is to be a result of doctrine.

Since the SBC and CBF are poles apart on many issues, no unity can exist.

Besides, the SBC does not need the BWA. What benefit could they possibly have toward the SBC.

 

1 Corinthians 12:18-26

As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it.

But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own. Can you imagine Eye telling Hand, "Get lost; I don't need you"? Or, Head telling Foot, "You're fired; your job has been phased out"? As a matter of fact, in practice it works the other way--the "lower" the part, the more basic, and therefore necessary. You can live without an eye, for instance, but not without a stomach. When it's a part of your own body you are concerned with, it makes no difference whether the part is visible or clothed, higher or lower. You give it dignity and honor just as it is, without comparisons. If anything, you have more concern for the lower parts than the higher. If you had to choose, wouldn't you prefer good digestion to full-bodied hair?

The way God designed our bodies is a model for understanding our lives together as a church: every part dependent on every other part, the parts we mention and the parts we don't, the parts we see and the parts we don't. If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing. If one part flourishes, every other part enters into the exuberance.

 

BB, you err on several levels. I have been a part of the SBC for a long time and have seen much. Perhaps you have too. We have come down on opposite sides though.

1. Paul was talking about the church, not other organizations. The SBC doesn't need the BWA any more than it needs Campus Crusade, the Gideons, etc.

2. You assume that the representative peoples within the BWA are saved.

3. The CBF broke off from the SBC. If it was enough for those folks to form another group, why would they then try to work together for missions? They have different theologies.

 

I did not err, I just quoted scripture.

I wasn’t trying to make as much of a theological statement as pointing out an attitude that seems to believe that the SBC doesn’t need any other Christian group to fulfill its mission.

Yep. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and I considered myself a Southern Baptist until the 2000 BF&M was adopted.

I’m on God’s side and I certainly hope you are too. We do not have to be enemies simply because we have strong disagreements over political matters and some doctrinal issues.

While we may not always work with other Christian groups because of differing goals or circumstances, we shouldn’t have the attitude that we “don’t need” the support and assistance of other Christians.

Many of them are. Many people in the SBC are not. Ultimately, we won’t know for sure until the Lord separates the wheat from the tares.

Southern Baptist churches have worked together for missions for over 155 years with a wide variety of theological stances between churches and leadership. This insistence on conformity is a recent development in Southern Baptist life.

Those in other Baptist groups (including CBF) generally recognize that Baptists can work together for common causes without having to have doctrinal uniformity.

Not as different as you might think.

 

BB, in all my years in Baptist life, two things are a constant:

1. Moderates are always trying to convince people that they aren't really that far off.

2. Moderates are not up front with what they believe. They only answer when pressed into a defined position.

This was the problem in the seminaries. Those who pushed the envelope recognized this. Those teaching in the seminaries would not be upfront with what they believe. Churches were far too trusting for the sake of unity.

 

It might be because they really aren’t that much different.

The SBC leadership doesn’t want you to believe that so they try to put “moderates” in the worst light possible – even if they have to invent their “facts”.

Many of them are up-front. Many of them aren’t up-front because they know that their words will get twisted and unfairly used against them.

In the SBC scheme of things, I'm generally considered to be a "moderate" myself - not so much for doctrine, but because of political reasons.

 

Not so much for theological reasons? Okay, what is it about the BFM2000 do you disagree with?

 

I think a good point has been raised here which I would like to put some focus on. Being parts of the body of Christ.

The BWA is made up of several diverse Baptist groups, My own denomination the Seventh Day Baptist Church is a member of it, and that is how we feel, that we are a part of the body of Christ along with other Baptist and Christian denominations.

If somebody goes to a SBC church and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, then that is a done deal, the same in a SDB, or any other Christian Baptist Church. There is not one Baptist denomination that has never made a mistake, denominations are made up of and run by people. What we are able to achieve through the Baptist World Alliance in Missions is truly amazing.

It is important that the parts of the body should function together towards the same goal of Evangalising Jesus Christ to the world. I hope that many more Baptists will come and join us.

 

Hmmm... Actually there are quite a few doctrinal reasons as well. When I wrote that I was thinking of a different aspect of the situation.

I was opposed to the "conservative resurgence" (sic) for ethical reasons, but the 2000 BF&M clinched it theologically...

I have a few quibbles with some wordings and the implications of some statements, but these are my major concerns:

The priesthood of the believer has been subtly altered to the priesthood of believers thereby eliminating the historic Baptist emphasis on individual responsibility to God (as well as corporate responsibility) in favor of simply corporate responsibility.

The insertion of “instruments of doctrinal accountability” indicates that this document will be (and already has been) used as a doctrinal standard for the evaluation of the doctrine of others. While previous confessions have been used as doctrinal benchmarks in seminary hiring on occasion, no previous confession has contained this statement or specified such a specific and hard-line doctrinal position.

These doctrines are alleged to be “essential” to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice, when in fact traditional Baptist faith and practice is much broader than described here.

I am very concerned that the Bible is considered God’s revelation of Himself to humankind. While scripture is certainly written revelation, God has not limited Himself to revealing Himself through scripture alone.

I am also concerned about the omission of the phrase from the 1963 confession, that the “criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Certainly the correct way to interpret the Bible is through the life, teachings and example of Christ Himself, who is the very incarnation of the Godhead in human form. Therefore, all of the Old Testament and the New should be interpreted through the revelation of Jesus Christ as presented in the gospels.

I am not alleging that there are inherent contradictions between Moses and Christ or Paul and Christ, but rather that the Law of Moses was established in order to prepare the way for Christ and that Paul was giving exposition and guidance to the living faith of the New Testament church established by Christ.

While all Baptists have the right to clearly state their view regarding women in pastoral ministry, it is a very poor idea to write one view into the confession of a major Baptist body as an “essential” standard for “doctrinal accountability” – especially since many Baptists understand the scripture differently.

I strongly affirm this article of the BF&M and wonder why the Southern Baptist leadership does not use it as a standard of “doctrinal accountability” to correct Richard Land’s pursuit of tax funds to support religious education.

It seems that this “instrument of doctrinal accountability” is only used selectively against those who might be a threat to the power structure of the Southern Baptist leadership. Since Land is a member of that leadership (and even a member of the committee that revised this confession), he is likely exempt from being held accountable to Baptist ideals.

I am opposed to the way the Baptist Faith and Message presents submission as the wife’s responsibility.

The biblical pattern is mutual submission (Ephesians. 5:21). Any deviation from that position (including just promoting wifely submission) is a grave distortion of the biblical text.