The Legacy of the CBF Founding Generation Lives On!

by Bill Carden                                                                                                                                     Vol. XXII, No. 8, September 2009

[Editor’s Note: We hear very little about the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship these days. In fact, so little that many Southern Baptists may not really understand the CBF’s theological and organizational positions. This article is a good refresher on CBF theology. TCP]

The motivation for this writer to produce this manuscript was to provide a record of a revealing statement by Cecil Sherman, the first CBF Executive Coordinator, relevant to the issue of heresy that surrounded the recent CBF General Assembly in Memphis.

In May 2005 this writer published a booklet titled “First Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tennessee and the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.” This booklet chronicled some of the events in the life of that church that occurred because of the strong opposition of its pastor, Dr. James Porch, toward the ongoing reformation process within the Southern Baptist Convention.

In 1992, the final year of his pastorate, during those months just before Howard Olive, the search committee chairman, presented his name to the TBC Executive Board for election to the position of Executive Director of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, Dr. Porch sought to convince his church that it should break ranks with the SBC and become affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The eventual climax of Dr. Porch’s effort to lead his church into affiliation with the CBF took place in April 1996, some 3 1/2 years after his pastorate ended, when a splinter group finally left the church and organized a new local congregation affiliated with the CBF.

That same month, two CBF leaders came to Tullahoma to provide encouragement to those members of FBC Tullahoma who were in the process of organizing their new CBF congregation. Howard Olive was a high-profile leader for the CBF in Tennessee, and Cecil Sherman was the first Executive Coordinator of the national CBF organization. Taking advantage of this visit to Tullahoma by these spokesmen for CBF, the pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Tullahoma, Don Dixon, who was moderator of the Tennessee CBF organization and also a member of the CBF National Coordinating Council at that time, invited the public to attend an open forum at his church on April 11 that would feature Cecil Sherman in a question-and-answer session on the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. This open session at Highland Baptist Church was attended not only by folks who were in sympathy with the CBF, but also by a handful of faithful members of FBC Tullahoma, and by this writer.

During this open session on April 11, 1996, Cecil Sherman expressed disapproval of a number of actions taken by Southern Baptists during the Conservative Resurgence, and he defended the response of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship toward those actions. One revealing statement by Dr. Sherman, etched into the memory of this writer, was a statement that is so relevant today to the readily apparent position of the CBF on the issue of heresy. This statement came near the end of Dr. Sherman’s discussion of one of the favorite complaints of the CBF toward the SBC at that time, regarding the situation that had become known as the “Ruschlikon Incident.” Jerry Sutton has provided a good explanation of the substance of this Ruschlikon issue on pages 274-285 of his 2000 book The Baptist Reformation.

Ruschlikon, in Switzerland, was the location of the International Baptist Theological Seminary that had been started by Southern Baptists in 1948 to establish a Baptist presence in postwar Europe. For over 40 years, career missionaries of the SBC Foreign Mission Board worked as administrators of the seminary, and trustees of the Foreign Mission Board provided annual funding to this seminary from Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon offerings. The new conservative FMB trustees began to expect, in return, a certain measure of accountability, both financially and theologically, from the seminary. When it became clear in October 1991 that the Ruschlikon Seminary would not provide this accountability in either of these two areas, the trustees chose to defund the seminary. The entire set of issues with Ruschlikon Seminary was reexamined by the trustees two months later, but when these meetings were concluded, there was no motion to the full trustee board to reinstate the funding.

Several career missionaries who had been administrators at Ruschlikon turned in their resignations to the SBC Foreign Mission Board, became involved in the newly formed global missions program of the CBF, and continued to work in their former positions under newly initiated CBF funding. The SBC decision to defund the seminary became a rallying point for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Cecil Sherman raised this funding issue in his remarks at the April 11 open meeting in Tullahoma. On pages 225-226 of his recent autobiography “By My Own Reckoning” Dr. Sherman mentioned the effect of the Ruschlikon funding issue on the beginning of CBF missions programs.

Absent from Dr. Sherman’s prepared presentation on the Ruschlikon situation on April 11 was any mention of theological concerns of the Foreign Mission Board trustees that were an integral part of the accountability concerns of the board. This changed when a dedicated Sunday School teacher from First Baptist Church reminded Dr. Sherman of the publicity that had surrounded the rejection of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ by members of the seminary faculty. To his credit, Dr. Sherman acknowledged that the soundness of the theology of the Ruschlikon faculty had been in question. He began a defense of the liberal theology of the European faculty by stating that certain doctrines were of crucial importance to our faith, while other doctrines could be treated as if they were of lesser importance. He stated that while he personally affirmed the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, he believed that this was possibly one of those doctrines that could be considered of lesser importance. His stated logic for treating the virgin birth of Christ as a doctrine of lesser importance went like this: “If this were a doctrine of primary importance, it would have been presented in all four of the New Testament Gospels.”

Does the CBF tolerate and defend heresy and theological error? This idea that the number of times God said something in Scripture might be used as a measure to judge whether or not God really meant what He said speaks to a person’s presuppositions of what Scripture actually is. This startling statement by Cecil Sherman revealed something about his personal views of Scripture, as well as the value of defending our Christian faith against heresy and error. His willingness in April 1996 to tolerate and even defend the rejection of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ by seminary faculty members identifies the legacy that has been passed down from the CBF founding generation to the present generation of CBF leaders and followers. This legacy includes the refusal of the CBF to take a firm stand on some of the most important doctrines of our Christian faith. Instead, the CBF desires freedom from doctrinal parameters and boundaries.

Recent events surrounding the CBF 18^th annual General Assembly, held in Memphis, Tennessee on June 19-20, 2008 suggest that this legacy handed down from the founding generation of the CBF has been carried almost to its logical conclusion. A theologian from New York City, who formerly was a professor at Samford University, was invited by the present generation of CBF leaders to be a guest lecturer for three of the workshops held during the two-day CBF meeting. On June 19, David Roach of Baptist Press reported under the title “CBF presenter questions Christ’s deity” that John Killinger stated that while salvation once meant belief in a series of doctrines about Christ, the advance of society has caused salvation to become a quest for self-realization or self-fulfillment. “Now we are reevaluating and we’re approaching everything from a humbler perspective and seeing God’s hand working in Christ, but not necessarily as the incarnate God in our midst,” Killinger was quoted as saying. He was further quoted to say that many CBF pastors agreed with his views of salvation. This first workshop presentation had the same title as Killinger’s 2007 book “The Changing Shape of our Salvation.” CBF publishing partner Smith & Helwys promoted the book and hosted a book-signing for the author at its booth during the annual meeting.

It did not take CBF officials long to realize that they had a serious public relations dilemma on their hands. They had issued an invitation to a guest lecturer, and the content of his first lecture was reported outside the walls of the meeting room, not only by Baptist Press but also by some of their own folks who had listened to the words of the speaker and had recognized the heretical content of his remarks on the incarnation of Christ. This dilemma was compounded the next day when this guest theologian presented his second and third workshop lectures. By the time his third lecture was completed, Killinger had stated that the Gospel of John was too assertive about the incarnation and the role of Christ, while the other three gospels showed “the more human side of Jesus, who was anointed at the time of his baptism to be the savior of Israel, but not necessarily to be the preexistent one that we find in John.” Killlinger also asserted that the Gospel of Mark was really a “Gnostic gospel” similar to writings that were rejected by the early church as heresy. He topped off his lectures with scandalous claims about the late Jerry Falwell.

The person who occupies the Director of Communications position for CBF issued a press release on June 20, the day following Killinger’s first workshop. This CBF press release attempted to distance the CBF from Killinger and minimize the effect of their invited speaker’s rejection of the deity of Christ by using quotes from two attendees who disagreed with Killinger’s views. Quotes were absent from other attendees who may have agreed with these views. Quotes were provided from two persons who had been responsible for organizing the breakout sessions and issuing the speaking invitation to Killinger. These quotes were designed to suggest that the CBF considers it to be quite appropriate for these workshop sessions to provide a speaking platform for persons having a myriad of beliefs, ideas, opinions, and wide interpretations of Scripture, including those beliefs expressed by their guest theologian.

Does the present generation of CBF leaders include leaders who are comfortable with the promotion of heresy and theological error in CBF meeting sessions? Are there leaders who speak for today’s CBF who do not understand the gravity of theological compromise? It does not seem to be a huge leap to move from a position of tolerance and defense of those who reject the virgin birth of Christ, based on the absence of specific mention of this doctrine in all four of the Gospels, to the position of complete denial or rejection of the incarnation and deity of Christ. This legacy of toleration and defense of heresy from the early days of CBF obviously lives on, and manifests itself among today’s CBF leaders and spokespersons!

Daniel Vestal, the present CBF Executive Coordinator, waited three full weeks, until July 10, before providing his first public comments on this heresy issue. The story on Vestal’s comments was written and published by the editor of Religious Herald, the news journal of the Baptist General Convention of Virginia. A second version of the story on Vestal’s comments, written by that same author, was carried on that same date by Associated Baptist Press and by Baptist Standard, the news magazine of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The titles for all three of these published versions of Vestal’s comments clearly suggest that Vestal was less concerned about the heretical views that had been promoted at the CBF General Assembly in Memphis than he was about the Baptist Press coverage of the implications of these views toward the apparent lack of commitment of CBF to basic Christian doctrines. In fact, it seems unlikely that Vestal would have provided his comments for publication, had he not felt the need to respond to a June 25 Baptist Press article written by the executive editor of the Florida Baptist Witness.

How widespread among today’s CBF leadership do we find evidence of this legacy of tolerance and defense of heresy and theological error? Tolerance of heresy leads to a defense of those who hold heretical views, and defense of those who hold these views may lead to promotion of those same views, as occurred in Memphis. The influence of this legacy appears to be an inherent characteristic of today’s CBF, even though the CBF Executive Coordinator may rightfully claim that he personally does not hold those heretical views. The 18^th annual CBF General Assembly offers evidence that this legacy of the CBF founding generation lives on, eventually leading to promotion of heretical views by the broader leadership of today’s CBF.