Quo Vadis, CBF?
by T. C. Pinckney Vol. V, No. 3, June 1992
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is not yet forthright enough to admit it is a new denomination, but that should not surprise us, for neither is it cooperative or baptistic.
Let's first examine the question of cooperation. Even prior to the CBF's organizational meeting held in Atlanta in August 1990, a plan was circulated which set forth in considerable detail a phased, five year program to form a new convention which states its "fifth overall advantage" as, "The plan gives a slowly evolving identity and infrastructure to a new Baptist denomination should that need fully materialize. The plan also allows adequate time for discussion and planning of such a denomination." Phase Two of the plan is titled "To Organize a National Accounting/Dispersal Agency" and was initially proposed for implementation in 1992. In the event, that agency was begun in 1990. The last statement of phase two is, "The infrastructure of a potential new convention is born."
The entire concept of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is not cooperation, but financial power. The second listed "overall advantage" of the plan says, "The plan would put adequate, measured, and anticipated pressure [and the preceding discussion makes clear the reference is to financial pressure] over an extended time on Fundamentalist Conservative leadership to negotiate and share convention leadership with moderate conservatives." Gone is any adherence to historic Baptist polity of abiding by majority vote. Gone is the spirit of loyalty even in opposition. And they are replaced with a truculence which depends upon monetary pressure and, if that is not successful, a willingness to take a bitter departure.
This non-cooperation is dramatically demonstrated in the CBF budget plans. CBF offers three alternate giving plans termed the Regular Plan, the Venture Plan, and the Vision 2000 Plan. Before you read any more about them and judging only by the names, which do you think is preferred? Vision 2000, right? To have the VISION to look toward the next century is heady stuff. How can a "regular" plan compete? Now consider the substance of the three. Of money contributed through the regular plan 96.7% goes to various SBC causes though none goes to the Executive Committee or Christian Life Commission. Of course non-cooperation is the order of the day even here because none of that money goes to the Cooperative Program, but rather is distributed according to a formula decided by the CBF itself. Under the Venture Plan only 54.4% flows on to SBC causes with nothing to the Ex. Com., CLC, or Southeastern Seminary and much reduced percentages to the other SBC entities. And now the Vision 2000 Plan: nothing at all goes to any SBC cause. CBF literature on the plans terms Vision 2000 "the most innovative and creative giving plan."
What, though, of the CBF's baptistic credentials? Whereas Baptists have strongly endorsed biblical inerrancy since John Smyth in 1609 (read Baptists and The Bible by Bush and Nettles), the CBF's "Address to the Public" which sets forth their distinctives states, "The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching." It doesn't even address inerrancy as a prerequisite for service, it flat out rejects inerrancy as a valid theological position.
Perhaps the most remarkable sentence in the Address states, "Being a Baptist should ensure that no one is ever excluded who confesses ‘Jesus is Lord."' During the convocation of August 1990 Randall Lolley issued a call for rejecting all creeds, confessions, and binding doctrinal statements in favor of this minimal requirement, citing E. Stanley Jones as a model.
"Jesus Christ is Lord" is a primary Christian confession, but in its bare form it is open to a universe of misunderstandings and unorthodox interpretations. E. Stanley Jones is a prime example of this problem. He was himself a universalist who confessed Jesus Christ as Lord, but also saw other religions as conveying salvific revelation.
What about Baptist distinctives – including believer's baptism? Are these not essential to this new denomination? This confessional minimalism is a marked departure from the Baptist heritage and a mark of distance between the CBF and the SBC.
The CBF displays all the organizational elements of a denomination. It is separately incorporated with its own constitution and bylaws, holds an annual convention, has a national coordinating council with an executive board, recently hired Cecil Sherman as its first full time executive director, has a publishing arm producing books and Sunday School materials, has established a mission agency which is hiring "missioners" and developing programs as rapidly as its limited resources allow, issues a regular newsletter, has established a seminary, and has set up Fellowship organizations in several states.
The next CBF annual meeting is in Fort Worth 30 April-2 May. Initially eight SBC agencies had agreed to sponsor exhibits there, but after reflection and consultation among themselves and others, all eight decided not to participate. The rationale was put succinctly by Jimmy Draper, president of the SBC Sunday School Board, "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship promotional materials advocate bypassing existing Cooperative Program channels. We want to avoid any misunderstanding that, by our presence, the board would be supporting any avenue of mission support that would erode the Cooperative Program."
SBC President Morris Chapman said, "The Fellowship is laying the foundation for a new denomination while claiming to be loyal to the SBC. The Fellowship is organizing competing agencies. It does give gifts to some of our agencies. But it is by no stretch of the imagination, giving through the SBC Cooperative Program. Rather it is deliberately attempting to divert funds from our CP to their plans of giving. This is not the Southern Baptist way."
Notably the above views are corroborated by none other than Cecil Sherman. In March he referred to the 76% of the money received by CBF which is contributed to SBC causes and said, "I think that five years from now that 76% will have decreased dramatically." Sherman said he will work to get more churches to give to the Fellowship's Vision 2000 Plan. "This is a permanent organization," he said. "We're not just standing around waiting for something to happen so we can ease back into the SBC."
Most recently CBF has announced that it will offer an alternative to churches which have been contributing to the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong missions offerings. Moderator John Hewett said he's not concerned with competing with SBC offerings, adding, "The Foreign Mission Board has financial reserves that boggle the mind." Hewett told the CBF council he hopes more churches will consider moving their gifts into the Vision 2000 Plan.
In another development, Dr. Glenn Hinson, church history professor at Southern seminary in Louisville, has announced plans to accept a teaching position at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond.
In summary, we can do no better than to quote from an editorial in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger by the editor, Glenn A. Brown. "Is dual alignment with the SBC and the CBF a workable arrangement for the long haul? I don't think so. There are simply too many differences between their basic ideas for peaceful coexistence. These differences fall in the areas of the Bible, education in Baptist schools and seminaries, missions philosophy, denominational leadership, the role of pastors, the role of women in the church, and tolerance for diversity.
"Sooner or later, those wavering between the SBC and the CBF must choose where they will invest their support. It is unlikely the CBF can remain within the framework of the SBC. As for me, I plan to stay with the SBC and the Cooperative Program."
[Above based on BP reports; an editorial by Al Mohler, editor of the Georgia Baptist Witness as reprinted in The Southern Baptist Communicator; "A Phased Five-Year Plan for Disenfranchised Southern Baptists;" and the cited editorial by Glenn Brown.]