Pillaging a Denomination
by Gary Ledbetter Vol. VI, No. 1, January 1993
[Gary Ledbetter is editor of The Indiana Baptist. This editorial appeared in the 19 May 1992 edition, shortly after the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship general assembly in Fort Worth. The substance of the editorial is perhaps even more pertinent now than when originally written.]
Billed as the "second largest meeting of Southern Baptists in 1992," the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) general assembly in Fort Worth was unlike any Baptist convention I have attended. Perhaps I expected the touchy, furtive, government-in-exile atmosphere that has characterized the SBC pressroom in the last couple of years. Instead I saw people who were relatively well-educated, stylishly dressed, and who exhibited the adolescent excitement of those who have embarked on an adventure. It was really rather a festive atmosphere in some ways. I also saw a group of people who came to town with a plan and who would implement that plan with little concern for its effect on Southern Baptist missions.
Rancor was not entirely absent from the small group meetings we attended, but it was the cordial kind of rancor that exists between those who share the same mythology. This mythology consists of "all those who have been fired" (how many?), the political ambition of fundamentalist leaders, the decline of missions and evangelism, those who would indoctrinate rather than teach truth, and a host of other widely held but unexamined convictions of garden variety moderates.
A part of me (small I must confess) wanted to wish well these brothers who remember the '60s and '70s, those years of Southern Baptist malaise, more fondly than myself. Perhaps the kingdom of God would be enhanced by a cordial separation of those who feel drawn to a more social gospel ministry. In reality though, I am heartsick that the people we observed are moving far too slowly toward forming a new denomination and seem intent on leaving scorched earth behind as they go. They are so careful to honor the SBC of yesterday that they are blind to the needs of today. These brothers are told by their prophets that our denomination is dead and then urged to make sure that prophecy comes true. Whether they can succeed is an issue but so is the fact that some who walked with us and even led us are now so willing to do harm. Have they changed in recent years, or have they always felt this contempt for our people and mission?
I attended one meeting where seminary students were given an opportunity to vent their collective spleen about what Southern Baptists have become, and I found the experience enlightening and disturbing. Some of the participants were young, ordained women who had a remarkable missionary zeal, but only for bringing along those less enlightened among us. There was also a remarkable unanimity among the people in this group that no credible education was any longer possible in our seminaries. They referred to the "glory days" of Southern and Southeastern seminaries wistfully as my parents might think of twenty cent gas and leaving the house unlocked. One young man, referring to two churches who have recently affirmed homosexuality, was offended at the suggestion that there was anything a local church could do that would cause it to be excluded. Anything at all?
There was among these young ministers, that rare ability to jump back and forth between American Baptist, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist, and Southern Baptist churches without seeing a problem. It should be no surprise to them to find that they are less employable at the end of the trip, but it is. "Anything at all" then would apparently include the infant baptism of the Methodists as well as true, classic, "God is dead" liberal theology from some Disciples churches. Do the leaders of the CBF, who themselves drove the Southern Baptist Convention into a ditch in earlier decades, actually have a hard time seeing why the 18,000 of us who will meet in Indianapolis next month aren't comfortable with the way things were? Have they listened to these kids?
This brings me to a major point of contention with the whole idea of the CBF. Many of the complaints raised in speeches and other public forums don't seem to be what this is all about. Or else, why would people who believe that homosexuality is a sin be so hesitant to say so without softening the blow? Why, I also wonder, would men who know that believers baptism, salvation only through the blood of Christ, the virgin birth, and the literal resurrection of Jesus are nothing more or less than orthodox Christianity be so at home with those who aren't sure of anything except that they would like to teach and preach among Southern Baptists? Why are these leaders unwilling to hear the evidence of such things?
What could, theoretically, we do to win these brothers? After looking more carefully at the plans and statements that define the CBF, I have to say nothing could win them. They have appointed missionaries, formed a seminary, refused to unequivocally denounce sin (homosexuality), and murder (elective abortion); they have siphoned off mission money and have produced little or nothing of a missionary nature. How do these things relate to charges of fundamentalist control and dirty politics that were the original cry of the moderate movement? Whatever else this movement may be, it is not honest; they have gone beyond tolerance into error and past protest into vandalism. Neither is the movement benign; they will wreck us in order to survive. The CBF is not acceptable biblically or in terms of Baptist heritage when their tents open wide enough to include pedobaptists and those who advocate immoral lifestyles. There is a real danger in thinking of this as "just democracy;" it is the enemy of our cooperative work.
People were urged in Fort Worth to be tireless in their efforts to form "denominational affairs committees" and get the CBF as at least an option in their church budget. The committees are meant to be the tool by which unsubstantiated doubt may be planted in the minds of church members about the integrity of our denomination. Getting a line item in your budget is intended to give legitimacy to those who mean no good to our people. I agree that people should learn more about what Southern Baptists are and what they are doing, but it is a mistake to let those with an agenda be the scouts for your church – make sure that research, discussion, and presentation are accomplished fairly and completely. As for changing your budget, you might as well put the American Baptist Convention or United Methodist Church in your budget as the CBF. In fact other denominations would be a better idea. They are at least plain in what they are and do little harm to our cooperative work. Maybe we could offer that generous (an) appraisal of the CBF if only they were honest enough to leave.
Editor's note: In light of Gary Ledbetter's editorial above, some quotes from an editorial by Mike Clingenpeel in the Religious Herald of about the same date are interesting. "If a purpose statement, officers, a constitution and bylaws, budget, staff, an annual meeting, an offering, missioners, and state chapters are the criteria that constitute a denomination, then historians will look back to 1992 as the year a new Baptist denomination, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, was founded.
"If 'denomination' is affixed to groups only if they intend to form a new denomination or agree among themselves that they are one, then the CBF is far from a new denomination.
"...Those who wish the CBF to grow in size and influence avoid the 'new denomination' label in an effort to appeal to that sizeable portion of the SBC constituency that is dissatisfied with the recent conservative resurgence but clings loyally to the SBC.
"... the CBF suffers from a potentially fatal flaw. At the meeting in Fort Worth it was painfully clear that subgroups exist whose agenda is more precious to them than missions. Inclusiveness is important to many Southern Baptists and most Virginia Baptists. But quota systems based upon gender, age, church size, geography or marital status are not essential for the selection of wise leadership in Baptist organizations. Pressed to extremes these criteria become the proverbial tail that wags the dog."
Note that Clingenpeel confirms some of Ledbetter's points. (1) The CBF at least looks mighty like a new denomination. Editor Clingenpeel could also have listed among the obvious elements of a denomination: a press agency, an ethics committee, a publishing arm, an historical agency, a seminary, and colleges ... all of which the CBF possesses. (2) Some within the CBF avoid calling it a denomination IN ORDER TO APPEAL to loyal Southern Baptists ... and thus to woo them away from the SBC. (3) Subgroups, each with its own agenda, exist within the CBF. Some apparently propose quota systems for influential positions within the CBF based upon gender, age, et cetera.