CBF boat unlikely to float without doctrinal sturdiness

FIRST-PERSON
CBF boat unlikely to float without doctrinal sturdiness
By James A. Smith Sr.


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (BP)--The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship seems to see their
organization as a kind of modern-day Noah's Ark of disgruntled Baptists. The
creatures on the boat come in all doctrinal stripes and shapes. The recent CBF
General Assembly in Atlanta reveals just what a challenge it must be to keep
this boat afloat.

In some rooms of this ark, you'll find Baptists who differ little from
grassroots Southern Baptists. By the time you've turned the corner, however,
you see a theological menagerie bearing almost no resemblance to anything you
have ever seen in a Baptist church.

In one room, you'll find radical feminists worshiping "Mother God" and talking
about how hard it is to call God "Father" or "Lord." In another room, the dean
of a CBF partner school joins with a Jewish rabbi to argue that Jews do not
need to have faith in Christ in order to be saved. Walk to the next room and
you'll find the head of yet another CBF partner school arguing that Baptists
shouldn't try to "convert" Jews, Muslims and Hindus since non-Christians can
"experience the divine" even without Jesus. And, he notes, don't pray in "Jesus
name" in mixed company.

There's yet another room on the CBF ark. That's where David Currie, a leader in
the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the "Mainstream Baptist Network"
charges the troops to take control of the Baptist state conventions. Currie
says Texas Baptists ought to divert their support for the Lottie Moon Christmas
Offering for SBC missionaries giving money instead to the BGCT or CBF. Who
needs Lottie Moon, Currie reasons, when the CBF and BGCT could spend the $14
million Texas Baptists gave to the offering last year to fund 100 missionary
couples of their own? After the BCCT dumps the North American Mission Board
funding this year, any question about their target for 2002?

(Sources for the references in the preceding two paragraphs are listed below.)

The belligerents for the homosexual lifestyle can be found in many rooms,
including the main hall where the CBF managed in a close vote to keep its
"welcoming but not affirming" statement on hiring practicing homosexuals.

Crying "creedalism," CBFers take great offense at the notion that the 2000
Baptist Faith and Message should be used as an "instrument of doctrinal
accountability" at SBC agencies, especially our seminaries. But less than a
year later, the CBF adopted its controversial "Organization Personnel and
Administrative Funding Policy" on homosexuality. Why? Because Baptist Press
exposed pro-homosexual literature in the exhibit hall at their 2000 General
Assembly and the leadership feared a loss of financial support from churches.
This year's CBF meeting (including the same literature, this time with the
explicit approval of the CBF leadership) was consumed in a battle to keep the
policy, while attempting to mollify a growing radical faction.

It took three votes to sustain the policy. Only a swing of 100 votes and the
CBF would now be in the midst of a yearlong study on homosexuality. Although
the CBF kept the policy, coordinator Daniel Vestal was careful to note, "This
statement was not intended to force conformity or stifle debate on
homosexuality. It was not intended to offend our gay and lesbian brothers and
sisters in Christ."

The debate was filled with cries of "creedalism" from the homosexual-friendly
contingent. I can see why they are confused. As Currie argued, "Any
organization that sends out missionaries must define itself." That's what the
churches of the SBC decided a long time ago -- over the objection of those who
now inhabit the CBF.

Note the contradiction: It's "creedalism" for the SBC to have a confession of
faith our denominational servants are expected to embrace, but it's not
"creedalism," CBF seems to argue, to "define" oneself.

The pragmatism and near absence of an appeal to Scripture is most remarkable
about the debate on homosexuality. The anti-policy side argued from modern
medical and psychological claims about homosexual "orientation," with civil
rights rhetoric thrown in for good measure. The pro-policy side contended that
failure to uphold the policy would mean CBF's financial ruin. The pro side
carried the (last) day, but must fear what the future holds for the group.

This result is not surprising when the passengers on the CBF boat have in
common only their distaste for the SBC and an appeal to Baptist "freedoms." All
Southern Baptists cherish our biblical freedoms of believers' priesthood, soul
competency, local church autonomy and religious liberty; but most Southern
Baptists reject their libertine distortions. And that's the gaping hole in the
side of the CBF boat -- confusing proper ends with necessary means. Freedom is
a necessary means by which we pursue the proper end: worshiping God in Spirit
and truth. Freedom is not, however, the ultimate goal of the Christian life.
The glory of Christ and his truth are.

All the pragmatic arguments in the world cannot save the CBF from
disintegration. Apart from a sturdy doctrinal structure, the CBF boat just
can't float.
--30--
Smith is executive editor of the Florida Baptist Witness newsjournal.
Sources utilized in paragraphs 3 & 4:
-- Baptist Women in Ministry annual meeting, Atlanta, June 28, 2001 (Baptist
Press, June 29, 2001).
-- "Jewish/Christian Dialogue and Cooperation," 2001 CBF General Assembly (tape
#190, Chesapeake Audio/Video Communications, 1-410-796-0040).
-- "Being Baptist in an Ecumenical/Interfaith Setting," 2001 CBF General
Assembly (tape #180, Chesapeake Audio/Video Communications).
-- "Why Protect Our Baptist Identity?" 2001 CBF General Assembly (tape #110,
Chesapeake Audio/Video Communications).