CBF: Between a rock and a hard place

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                               Vol. XVII, No. 3, March 2004

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship has had a problem of deciding exactly who they are, where they stand, since their founding ten years ago. By emphasizing “inclusiveness” they hope to appeal to the largest number of churches, but by avoiding taking a stand on specific issues, they risk offending many of their supporters at every turn. Note that this is not just the judgment of one whom they would consider a “fundamentalist.”

This article was sparked by a “perspective” piece in the January 2004 issue of Baptists Today, which bills itself as “An autonomous national Baptist news journal” though it works hand in glove with CBF and other liberal Baptist groups. Author of the article was Ron Crawford, pastor of College Park Baptist Church, Orlando, FL. First I will quote roughly 20% of Crawford’s article; then I will comment.

“... After 10 years, the CBF identity remains unclear. Are we a denomination? Are we a convention? What is a fellowship? ...

“For us, and for those who follow in our wake, CBF must sharpen its sense of identity. We need to be clear about who we are.

“In one form or another, it is essential that CBF address values. Not only do people beyond our community need to know who we are and what we are about, but it would also be helpful for CBFers to know.

“We may need to approve a Baptist confession, but I hope not. We might do better to adopt a leaner statement of values, principles or a covenant. The latter – or any of the three – could focus on identity without carrying the authority of a confession.

“Articulating values could reduce the number of fellowship churches and individuals. The clarity we provide might lead some churches away from us. The risk is significant.

“Defining values need not be overly complex or detailed. Rather, they need to be precise and represent an overarching consensus. ...

“The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship suffers from a lack of consensus about identity. A values or principles statement could clarify the organization’s sense of purpose. It would define who we are and what we are about.”

I agree with Crawford’s main point. Every organization should stand clearly for something. That “something” may be square dancing, safer highways, better schools, the life of unborn babies, better care of the Appalachian Trail, or any of a myriad of other purposes. But if the group does not adhere to a defined intent, why in the world would anyone join?

Initially, CBF did not face, perhaps did not discern, this issue. Basically, in my judgment, those who created CBF were motivated by shared resentment of the biblical conservatives who had rallied Bible-believers in the churches and successfully defeated the reigning liberals who had held for many years an ever-tightening stranglehold on the SBC.

At first that negative bond was enough to hold CBF together. But now, after a decade, CBFers increasingly recognize the need for something more. The shared negative feeling is insufficient. There is a lack of positive visions, values, principles. As Crawford wrote, “We need to be clear about who we are.”

Note what he writes a little further, “Articulating values could reduce the number of fellowship churches and individuals. ... The risk is significant.”

If CBF openly endorses the homosexual lifestyle, its more biblically inclined churches will be offended and undoubtedly a number would leave ... taking their dollars with them. But if CBF openly condemns homosexual participation, without question its pro-homosexual congregations would be most unhappy and turn elsewhere. Now that is just one rather obvious (though accurate) example, but the same principle applies to other matters. As Crawford says, “The risk is significant.”

Notice what Crawford does not mention: the over-arching importance of being faithful to Holy Scripture. (He does at one point write, “We affirm ... inspiration of scripture [sic]”.)

One value repeatedly cited by CBFers – though not by Crawford in his article – is “inclusiveness”. Yet by definition inclusiveness produces the elimination of standards. The more points of view one willingly includes, the fewer standards one can sustain. Just look at our national scene: The push for abortion “rights”, for acceptance of homosexuality as just another legitimate lifestyle, the adoption of no-fault divorce all directly attack the historic standards of marriage and family. No society can simultaneously embrace child murder, rebellious lust, and easy-out marriage and still indefinitely remain vibrant, healthy, and virtuous. On an organizational level, this is the same kind of question facing CBF.

Why should anyone join a group that is unwilling to specify its values, its purposes, to take a stand on what it believes? I predict that CBF will increasingly be hoisted on its own petard: Every time it does stand clearly, it will lose members and dollars. Every time it refuses to stand clearly, it will lose members and dollars. There will probably still be a few churches joining from time to time, but CBF is between a rock and a hard place of their own construction.

Their future is not bright.