Charter Member Critiques CBF                                       

                                                                                                                                                                     Vol. VIII, No. 1, January 1995

[Richard L. Atkins is a lay leader among the "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship" in Florida, and was at the meeting in Atlanta in August 1990 when CBF was formed. The 15 December 1994 issue of the liberal newspaper Baptists Today published an article by Atkins in which he critiques CBF. Among the points he makes are the following three. The bold print is his own.]

[CBF] sidesteps the central issue, the fallacy of inerrancy. It does not like to engage in polemical doctrinal debate. Its attitude of tolerance prevents it from attacking the beliefs of fundamentalists. Also, it does not want to offend latent fundamentalists within its own ranks.

Until CBF recognizes fundamentalism as a dangerous threat and the embodiment of ignorance, superstition, backwardness, cult-like despotism and the ubiquitous root of global turmoil, true prophetic preaching against this gross error will not be found in CBF pulpits and publications.

It proclaims "politics" to be the central issue. Refusing to recognize that the "battle for the Bible" is the real point of contention, moderates have generated a smokescreen issue of "power politics."

Granted that perpetrators of the takeover are power-hungry megalomaniacs, still this does not negate the fact of their sincere, if misguided, dedication to the cause of biblical inerrancy. The claim that politics is the central issue is in itself a political tactic.

It has not defined its doctrinal boundaries. The average lay person is afraid of liberalism and skeptical of scholarship. CBF should have put these fears to rest. Without creating new articles of faith, the CBF still could define general parameters of belief which exclude the theology of classical liberalism, humanistic secularization, and laissez faire morality.

[Editorial Comment: It is important to remember that Atkins is a charter CBF member and, as his words demonstrate, can by no means be labelled a conservative. But notice carefully that he validates three important points conservatives have maintained for years:

(1)  Atkins agrees with conservatives that the real issue is whether or not the Bible is entirely correct or contains errors. Of course he characterizes the beliefs of "fundamentalists," of which inerrancy is primary, as " the embodiment of ignorance, superstition, backwardness, cult-like despotism," but to his credit he acknowledges the correct "central issue" between conservatives and liberals: is the Bible absolutely true factually as well as spiritually? Conservatives say yes; liberals say no.

(2)  Atkins accuses CBF of "proclaim(ing) 'politics' to be the central issue" and of "refusing to recognize that the 'battle for the Bible' is the real point of contention." He says CBF has generated a smoke-screen issue of 'power politics.’” Thank you, Mr. Atkins. That is exactly what conservatives have said for years: Politics is involved, but politics is not the main thing. The main thing is a question of ultimate authority, is it God's Word or man's judgment? Atkins demonstrates that at least one CBF-er understands the primary issue and, as he writes, "The claim that politics is the central issue is in itself a political tactic."

(3) Atkins correctly observes that CBF has not defined its doctrine. He recommends a general direction for CBF to follow to do so, but he does not explore the reasons CBF has not yet done so. Let me suggest why liberals always have a tough time constructing doctrinal statements acceptable to all members of their group and why conservatives find such statements relatively easy to conclude.

In simple fact, liberals believe there are errors and contradictions of various kinds in the Bible: historical, scientific, genealogical, et cetera. AND HAVING DISCARDED THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE, THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO STAND. They have no common ground, no sure foundation. They pervert the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer from an emphasis upon each believer's RESPONSIBILITY into an assertion of each believer's RIGHT or FREEDOM FROM responsibility. In their concept each believer has the right to interpret the Bible as meaning anything he can rationalize. And so liberals have no basis of objection when churches which claim to be Baptist marry two homosexuals, or ordain practicing homosexuals, or any of a myriad of less obvious heresies.

Liberals have no sure anchor to hold them in safe harbor during the storms of life, and they find themselves blown about by every vagrant wind, cast by every whimsical current upon pride-of-life reef.

In contrast, while conservatives share the same sin nature, conservatives have a common, firm foundation. When two conservatives view a doctrinal issue differently, their personalities do not have to become involved. Instead the normal conservative response is to say, "Well, let's see what the Bible says." Conservatives probably tend to go off on tangents just as much as do liberals, but their eager, loving submission to the authority of God's Word keeps bringing them back together.

Jesus did not say, "Take My freedom upon you, and I will give you license." Nor, "If ye love Me, ignore My commandments." Rather He said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me ... “

....... (Matthew 11:29) and "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15)

Thank you, Richard Atkins, for confirming much that conservatives have said.]