CBF Theology

by   Fred Malone                                                                                                                                               Vol. VI, No. 3, April 1993

[Fred Malone is pastor of Heritage Baptist church, Crowley, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in New Testament from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This article is reprinted from the Texas Baptist Conservative Newsletter and comments on his observations at a CBF meeting in Texas.]

From John Hewitt, Moderator, we heard words like "free and faithful Baptists, historical Baptists." From Jimmy Allen words like "priesthood of the believer, soul competency, not told what to believe, shepherds, not dictators." From Patricia Ayres words like "free church, non-creedal, relatively homogeneous, put aside differences." From Hardy Clemons words like "not creedal, uncomfortable with litmus tests... If you do missions for Jesus Christ, we want to talk to you."

There are two things that should be of concern about the theological implications of the claims made by the leaders of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: (1) Theological Revisionism, and (2) Theological Reductionism.

Theological Revisionism. The questions that arise after hearing all the statements on freedom of the believer and emphasis against creeds is "What do these people believe? What binds them beyond freedom? What will their missionaries teach as the gospel?" The only heritage and belief they seriously hold of Southern Baptist history appears to be the freedom from being forced to conform to any beliefs in mission. For instance, I could have attended the conference and voted in their assembly, even if I had been a Jehovah's Witness! To say that Baptist history supports a free church tradition to send missionaries out regardless of their beliefs is an attempt to revise Southern Baptist history!

Dr. Gene wilder taught a seminar entitled, "Teaching Congregations about the SBC Controversy, or How to Tell the Truth without Losing Your Job" that Baptists have historically rejected all creeds and resisted any attempt to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy. That is simply historically untrue. For example, early Baptists and Southern Baptist associations and institutions adopted statements of beliefs, and C. H. Toy was fired by J.P. Boyce for higher critical views. The Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary was written to enforce orthodoxy.

Speaking of revisionism, Linda McKinnish Bridges of Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond preached from Acts 13:13-41, and presented Paul as a revisionist whose reverence for Jewish traditions was changed by the risen Christ (literal or existential?) to include Gentiles now. Did she mean traditions as "story" or "factual history?" Was Paul espousing present Jewish traditions or Old Testament history? There is a difference. Paul spoke of Old Testament history, not "traditions" when he quoted Isaiah 49:6 that God always intended for the Gentiles to come in. Paul's preaching to the Gentiles was a fulfillment of Old Testament revelation, not a revision of the Yahwist tradition!

Her point, lurking with liberal and revisionist theological terms, was for the CBF to fondly revere old "sacred stories" of past SBC days, while revising the future as Paul did. But Paul used the inspired revelation of Isaiah 49:6 as the authority to include the Gentiles, not only a revision experience with the risen Christ. Such confusing exegesis and application by the "story" method is one of the mainstays of modern-day liberalism.

Theological Reductionism. I was also uncomfortable with Bill Leonard's message. Making unfair caricatures of Southern Baptists who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, Leonard mentioned "snake-handling Baptists ... the only real inerrantists I know."

His main subject was Christian unity surrounding baptism. Stating that denominations in American Christianity "just don't matter like they once did," Leonard appealed to baptism as the unifying bond of CBF. Using a sweet story of his handicapped daughter's baptism, who could not conceptualize the gospel as Southern Baptists expect (I don't know anyone who would have required it of her), Leonard minimized CBF doctrinal unity for ministry as sufficient in baptism and the confession "Jesus is Lord." He caricatured the necessity of further belief: "Not one of us can ever conceptualize enough to make us worthy of God's grace."

Whoever said that knowledge makes one worthy of grace? Such false dichotomies between knowledge and grace, as if emphasis on knowledge and doctrine equals work-salvation, belittles that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." It reduces the necessity to define what sin is, who Jesus is, what repentance and faith are, etc. Such theological reductionism can only result in liturgical, sacramental-type emphases in worship to replace the centrality of the Word of God written, and in classic social-gospel missions that will minimize heaven-hell issues toward lost souls.

The worship services at the assembly were marked by litanies, sacred dances, and preaching as story telling rather than exposition of Scripture. According to Hewitt, these were designed to "stretch" the attendees. It was to break down opposition to such things in local churches. Women preachers and pastors were honored, appealing to emotionalized equality rather than revelation. While ridiculing inerrancy, the CBF seeks to acclimate members to unscriptural practices in the church.

Theological issues will not escape the CBF. Look for statements on sexuality (one Coordinating Committee member is from Pullen Memorial, the church which recently gave a nod of approval to homosexuality within the church), the environment, and more public repentance for what our forebears did. I predict that in 10 to 15 years, the churches who commit themselves to the CBF will look a lot like the liberal Presbyterians today ... only dipped instead of sprinkled. There is no doubt, they will become a separate denomination, whether with the American Baptists or on their own.