by: T. C. Pinckney, editor, The Baptist Banner                                    Vol. XIV, No. 2, February 2001

Things are coming to a head. Adoption of the revised Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) last June has brought to a boil debates and disagreements that had been simmering for several years. A number of churches, including at least two here in Virginia, have separated from the Southern Baptist Convention. Under liberal leadership the Baptist General Association of Texas more than $5 million will be withheld from the six SBC seminaries, the SBC Executive Committee, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) annual meeting, which followed the SBC meeting by two weeks in Orlando, heard repeated calls for the CBF to declare itself a new national denomination.

All the furor has caught the attention of many churches, pastors, and laymen who had not paid much attention to the struggle within the SBC. Now these churches and individuals realize that they must make a decision, that even refusing to decide to change IS a decision to stay the same, and they want to make their decisions knowledgeably. This article is designed to provide some facts to help in the decision process.

The most important difference between conservative and liberal Southern Baptists is their understanding of the authority of Scripture. Fortunately for our discussion, passage of the BFM revision gives us a very current statement of SBC beliefs about the Bible. Article I of the revised BFM, "The Scriptures", reads:

"The Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

Much of this paragraph remains the same as in the earlier BFM version, but two sentences were added: "Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." and "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." One sentence was deleted: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." Why these changes?

First, think about the sentence which was removed. What does it mean to say, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."?   Yet what do we know about Christ other than what the Bible tells us? That sentence allowed those who wanted to do so to place personal experience above Scripture. It opened a door to a false conflict between Jesus and the Bible, to progressive revelation. In short, accepting that sentence allowed anyone to rationalize anything.

Second, look at the first sentence added: "Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." This sentence emphasizes the all-inclusive nature of scriptural truth, whether the biblical statement addresses theology, history, science, or culture. It is ALL "totally true and trustworthy." Liberals had been able to twist the 1963 BFM version by asserting that "The Bible is authoritative on matters of belief, of faith, but it was never intended to be authoritative on science, history, or cultural norms."

Finally, reread the second new sentence, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." This sentence effectively eliminates the possibility of someone trying to create a conflict between Christ and Scripture, and it also demonstrates the falsity of the frequent liberal charge that conservatives are "bibliolators", worshippers of the Bible rather than Jesus.

With the above as background, let me summarize what conservative Southern Baptists believe. In short, if the Bible says it, conservatives believe it. We recognize our human limitations, and consequently we know that we may not understand everything the Bible says (for example, the simultaneous truth of election and free will), but we also know that "now we see as through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know even as also I am known."

Moreover, having the Scriptures as a common standard, if conservatives disagree on some point, we have an impartial authority to which we can appeal and which continually draws us from our tendency to stray, back to the biblical rock.

On the other hand, it is not so easy to accurately characterize liberal beliefs precisely because liberals have no common standard. Liberals often say that "the Bible is the record of God's revelation of Himself to men." Note that they do not say it IS God's written revelation, but rather that it is the RECORD of His revelation. Moreover, they mean that it is a record as understood and recorded by fallible men, so that it will certainly contain mistakes, not only erroneous cultural norms, science, and history, but also even matters of faith. The result is that there is so much disagreement among liberals that it becomes extremely hard to point out anything they all believe or disbelieve. About the best one can say is that some believe this, others believe that.

Following are some significant CBF positions:

Homosexuality: The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship has taken its first stand on homosexuality. A two-paragraph statement on homosexuality was adopted by the CBF Coordinating Council in a 35-23 split vote during its Oct. 13, 2000 session in Atlanta, according to news reports. Titled "A Statement of an Organizational Value Regarding the Funding of Partners," the statement reads:

"As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character.

"Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual."

CBF Coordinator Daniel Vestal was quoted by Associated Baptist Press (the liberal Baptist press agency) as saying of the new CBF statement on homosexuality: "It [is] time for CBF to address this issue as an organization." The CBF is "being defined by our enemies on the right and our friends on the left. I feel it is time for our organization ... to do some self-definition and not depend on others to define us," Vestal said, describing the statement as "welcoming but not affirming" of homosexuals.

Vestal said very few CBF-related churches would ordain a homosexual to the ministry or conduct a same-sex union, according to the ABP story. "I have no interest whatever in excluding or demeaning or minimizing any in this Fellowship who share a different perspective than this document," Vestal was quoted as saying. "I do not want, one, for us to fragment over this," he said. "Two, I don't want anyone to leave over this. I think the difference between us and other bodies is we can and should have differences among us and still be committed to Christ and our common cause."

The Southern Baptist Convention in 1992 approved an amendment to its constitution, with virtually no opposition, stipulating that churches that "affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior" are "not in friendly cooperation" with the convention. The vote at the SBC annual meeting in Indianapolis began a two-year process that culminated at the following year's meeting in Houston, putting in place provisions to keep such churches from attending SBC annual meetings or sending contributions through the SBC Cooperative Program.

The CBF stance, however, makes no stipulation regarding the involvement of such churches in the CBF. The homosexual issue is likely to remain an issue within the CBF in additional ways, with CBF critics having noted the CBF's $9,900 allocation in its current budget to the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America for developing church resources relaying its views on peace, justice, and reconciliation. The Coordinating Council, in its Oct. 13 actions, made no recommendation concerning the allocation.

The Baptist Peace Fellowship, in 1995, issued two statements affirming "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons" in church life. The organization's board, in the first statement, vowed it will "take an active role at denominational meetings to oppose any resolutions which assault the integrity of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and prevent them from becoming members of churches, being ordained, being credentialed for chaplaincy and pastoral counseling, and being employed in denominational structures."

This year, the Baptist Peace Fellowship produced a curriculum for churches, titled "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Resource for Congregations in Dialogue on Sexual Orientation," which affirms same-sex partnerships, denies that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, and affirms homosexuality as an unchangeable sexual orientation. Promotional materials for the curriculum include endorsements by former CBF moderator Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler and Tom Clifton, president of the CBF-supported Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, KN.

The CBF Coordinating Council also rejected a portion of the statement as originally proposed to end direct financial aid of CBF "partner" theology schools that affirm homosexuality, according to an Associated Baptist Press report. Theology schools bound by university-wide policies prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals would have been blocked from direct CBF funding although their students could continue to receive CBF scholarships. Instead, a study will be undertaken on the potential impact on at least four CBF-supported theology schools which have open admission for homosexuals: Wake Forest Divinity School and "Baptist houses of study" at Duke, Emory, and Texas Christian universities. Currently Wake Forest and TCU use CBF funds only for scholarships, ABP reported, while Duke and Emory receive direct CBF support.

Additional concerns that may surface within the CBF about homosexuality include:

-- No CBF checks are in place for CBF-funded organizations which join forces with homosexual activist groups, such as the CBF-funded Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs did in 1994 in a manual titled, "How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community," which also included the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force among the sponsoring organizations. Among the manual's assertions: "You cannot successfully battle right wing forces without gay and lesbian participation."

-- The CBF statement does not address the participation of CBF leaders in various organizations at the forefront of the nation's pro-homosexual movement, such as David Currie, former chairman of the CBF Coordinating Council's finance task group, who is on the board of The Interfaith Alliance, an ecumenical Washington-based group that has launched a number of initiatives in concert with homosexual activists.

The Interfaith Alliance has released, for example, an "issue paper," titled, "Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians in Housing, Employment, and Education," supportive of the controversial Employment Non-Discrimination Act percolating in Congress since the mid-1990s. The bill would establish homosexuality, under the title of "sexual orientation," as a classification deserving protection in the same way race, ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability now have protected status in the workplace. The Interfaith Alliance issue paper charges that religious conservatives have "propagated a series of harmful myths about the gay and lesbian community," such as "using the metaphor of disease, suggesting that homosexuals can and must be 'cured' by programs of 'reparative therapy' in order to live a healthy lifestyle ... ."

This review of the recent CBF statement on homosexuality demonstrates classic liberal double think. First, CBF approves a fairly good position on the subject, but it is unwilling to stand on its own position. Note Dan Vestal's statement, "I do not want, one, for us to fragment over this. Two, I don't want anyone to leave over this. I think the difference between us and other bodies is we can and should have differences among us and still be committed to Christ and our common cause." Even on a subject as clear-cut as homosexuality, being inclusive is more important than being true to biblical mandates.