CBF Coordinating Council Report

by   Art Toalston                                                                                                                                                Vol. VII, No. 3, April 1994

The Coordinating Council for the CBF met in Nashville 18-19 February and made th following decisions and announcements:

– Approved forming a CBF Foundation to raise endowment funds,

– Included a one-time gift of $100,000 to the WMU in the 1995 CBF budget. Keith Parks, CBF missions coordinator, said the CBF-WMU relationship "is as wholesome as it could possibly be." Parks said future CBF-WMU cooperation might be possible. He noted that CBF has used WMU's studio for production of a video.

– Cecil Sherman, CBF coordinator, distributed information by state showing the dollars contributed in 1993 by churches and individuals. In Virginia, 219 individuals donated $126,468 and 216 churches gave $400,159. Only in NC did more churches (221) contribute, and there were more individual donees only in Georgia, NC, and Texas.

– In other comments Sherman said, "I don't think [continued CBF growth] can be presumed. It will be increasingly difficult for churches to come to CBF. ... We are not a theology-standardizing organization. We are a mission delivery system."

– Appointed five missionaries, bringing CBF' s total missionary force to 31 (compared to 3,948 SBC missionaries).

[Editorial Comment: Some of the above is significant: (1) Establishment of the endowment foundation is another formalizing step, another demonstration that CBF is actually a new denomination although they do not yet acknowledge that obvious fact. (2) Keith Parks' comment re the CBF-WMU relationship is revealing, "as wholesome as it could possibly be." Before long it seems obvious that WMU will be forced by the logic of its own actions to choose between allegiance to and cooperation with the SBC or CBF. It is neither logical, practical, nor honorable to proclaim continued close relations with the SBC while simultaneously helping an organization bent on harming the SBC as much as is in its power. (3) Sherman's remark that CBF is "not a theology standardizing organization. We are a mission delivery system," capsulizes both CBF's primary weakness and strength.]

CBF appeals to its supporters because it focusses on function not doctrine. If what you believe is held to be unimportant or at least is repressed, you can cooperate peacefully with almost anyone in carrying out some function of mutual interest. But no one can live long-term as if belief does not matter. Even though one may not admit it, everyone has a worldview, a set of beliefs, and at some point the widely disparate belief systems of the CBF'ers will tear that organization apart. The major long-term problem facing CBF is not fundamentalists in the SBC, but the absence of an agreed doctrinal foundation within CBF.

Theologically, CBF says to its members, "Do your own thing." They will. And the most likely (though not the only possible) scenario is for the most liberal, the most radical, the most outrageous to wriggle to the top and assume positions of influence and control. This will probably happen because there is no standard of accountability. We conservatives have a self-correcting mechanism because we believe in an inerrant Bible. This belief endows us with an automatic trim system, a common foundation upon which we all stand and to which we can turn in the midst of disagreements.

When conservatives disagree, we can go to the Book, study what God has said, and come to common agreement, at least on basic doctrine. In a sense, the Bible serves as a measuring rod acceptable to all conservatives. We can be held accountable to biblical doctrine without having our egos battered in the doctrinal debate. It is not that we are not fallibly human or that we do not have egos, we are and we do. Rather it is that the focus of conservative discussion has been moved from the plane of personality to the question, "What does the Bible say?" Once we agree on the answer to that question, we can cooperate without rancor. Personality is removed from the essential process. When personality does intrude it is an aberration, not the rule.

On the other hand, those CBF' ers who do not subscribe to an inerrant Bible (certainly the great majority of CBF'ers, perhaps all, do not) say they can cooperate on function ("We are a mission delivery system.") not doctrine ("We are not a theology-standardizing organization."). And so they can, but only as long as their primary stimulus is opposition to the SBC. For the present, that antipathy serves to unite CBF, but inevitably it will atrophy. One can maintain max adrenalin levels only so long. Quite obviously, CBF leaders are attempting, perhaps unconsciously, to substitute an organizational-functional imperative for the doctrinal unity they lack. In my judgment, such motivational sleight of hand will not work for long.

The long-term outlook for CBF is indeed bleak. Conceived in resentment, birthed in frustration, sharing no common biblical belief system, and comprised of folks holding widely disparate worldviews, the more successful they are in developing and focussing on their own programs, the greater centrifugal pressures will build. As we pray for God's light along our own path, we must pray also for those who despitefully use us. May they come to God's light (not OUR light) as He gives them grace to see the light. They are hurting now and in all likelihood will hurt much more in the future. We must stand unflinchingly firm on God's perfect Word with wisdom, discernment, faithfulness, energy, commitment, and courage. We must go to every associational, state, and SBC meeting so that our voices may be heard and our votes registered. But if we are to be obedient to His Word, we must also pray for and genuinely love those who have set themselves in opposition to His Word and the Southern Baptist Convention. TCP]