CBF Contributions

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                                                        Vol. VII, No. 8, October 1994

Readers will recall that at the SBC convention in Orlando this past June a motion was offered and passed overwhelmingly to instruct all SBC agencies NOT to accept any more money flowing through the "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship." As might be expected, CBF partisans are accusing SBC leaders of infringing the autonomy of the local church through this action. There are several interesting aspects to the situation.

CBF leaders do not mention, of course, that a motion was offered at their own annual meeting this past May to stop sending money to the SBC and that one of the major points made against the motion was that the CBF should wait and let the SBC stop receiving the funds and so take the onus. Nor do CBF leaders mention the dramatic drop in the percentage year by year of dollars flowing on to the SBC through the CBF. Here are the figures as published by their own Fellowship News (July/August 1994 issue) which they describe as "the bimonthly newsletter of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship...": 199158%; 1992 45%; 1993 24%; 1994 16% (the latter figure is through the end of May, before the SBC action took effect).

Regarding autonomy of the local church, CBF figures such as Dr. Cecil Sherman, their national coordinator, do not acknowledge that every local Baptist church has been, is, and remains in the future free to decide what its members wish to do with their missions giving. If a congregation wants to contribute to the SBC, it may do so by sending donations through the state office in Richmond or by mailing the check directly to the SBC in Nashville. If a congregation wants to give to the CBF, it is likewise completely at liberty to send its money to the CBF in Atlanta. Not only is that freedom recognized, we might ask ourselves how SBC leaders would ever know that a church was contributing to CBF. Obviously they wouldn't.

There appear to be two concerns motivating complaints from CBF leadership, both of them self-serving. First, they expect the SBC action to have a negative impact upon giving to CBF as Southern Baptists realize that the CBF is not just another way to give to SBC missionaries and other SBC causes, but actually is a separate organization increasingly going its own way. Another brief quote from the same issue of Fellowship News, "CBF leaders expect receipts for the entire year to fall short of the $12.5 million in the 1994 budget since the Southern Baptist Convention in June instructed its agencies and institutions to refuse further contributions channeled through the Fellowship."

Second, the SBC action has "blown the cover" behind which the CBF has been masquerading ever since its founding. Now CBF will have to acknowledge that it is independent, different from the SBC in form, purpose, and theology. It can no longer pretend to be loyally Southern Baptist just in a somewhat unusual form. Check this revealing quote from Fellowship News, this one under the byline of Dr. Cecil Sherman: "We must not go into the next century looking into the rearview mirror. CBF is pulling together a new vision of cooperative missions and ministry ... Even so, I sense that some of our support is half-hearted. ... At CBF we are going to talk less about ‘what they did' and more about what we ought to be doing."

Now please carefully note where SBC leaders stand on this sensitive point. It would be easy to misunderstand. I have heard many SBC leaders discuss CBF and NEVER do I recall one suggesting "moderates" should not form their own, separate organization if that is what they wish. However, SBC leaders do commonly maintain that moderates should be frank regarding what they're about. Their theology seems to be different from historic Baptist belief in the full authority of God's Written Word. They have created a counterpart organization to virtually every SBC agency and institution. They directly compete with the SBC for dollars from churches as Cecil Sherman has acknowledged on several occasions.

Actually, it is difficult to find out just what the theology of the CBF is. Their coordinating council met 10 September, and Baptist Press reports, "A fourth working draft of a three-page CBF mission statement was ‘too general ... abstract ... leaves out our relationship to God ... and contains no scripture references,' according to council members.... An additional draft will be presented at the next council meeting, with plans to provide a final recommendation to the 1995 general assembly."

Though they do not say (and we cannot say) exactly what doctrine CBFers believe, we note that four years after their formation they do not yet have a vision statement, much less a doctrinal one. We also have read Sherman's assertion that "It's [the virgin birth] in two Gospels, but not in two others. I believe in the virgin birth, but why did Mark and John forget to list it? Did they make a mistake? If the virgin birth is desperately important, [these] Gospel writers must have erred." In addition, the current Fellowship News prints the following from a letter by retired Air Force chaplain and Virginia pastor Frank A. Rice, "If in word or attitude we convey and foster the impression that the circle of our fellowship is not large enough to encompass Baptists of all theological orientations, we become guilty of the exclusionary policy which we renounced and which gave rise to our [CBF's] birth."

Thus Sherman believes the Bible contains errors or at least that the virgin birth is not particularly important. Rice writes that CBF must "encompass Baptists of ALL theological orientations..." [Emphasis added.] Such views would seem to make it difficult for CBF ever to agree on doctrine.

Perhaps this doctrinal disability is reflected in comments Sherman made at a recent CBF administrative committee meeting. "Most of the moderate churches I go to aren't doing all that well. Most of them are in various stages of struggle. ... too many moderate pastors can give you a full story on how not to do evangelism. The only problem is they don't do any evangelism."

You will and should judge for yourself the validity of CBF views. For what little it may be worth, my view is: (1) If a church feels led to adhere to CBF and leave the SBC, that i s exactly what it should do, and conservatives should not criticize it for doing so. Indeed, such churches should go with our regret but blessings for being loyal to what they believe. (2) Congregations which no longer believe in full biblical authority should go with CBF. They will be much more comfortable there. (3) Those who stand in the old ways, who agree with biblical doctrine as handily summarized in the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963 should remain faithful Southern Baptists, and moderates should not criticize them for doing so.

The prime issue should not be personal. And we should not focus on secondary matters. If you believe the Bible contains errors, by all means go with CBF and may God bless you. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, perfect Word of God, stay loyal to the SBC, and may God bless you. We seem to be in a time of transition during which folks are making up their minds. After this gets sorted out and the two denominations go their separate ways, we will see which is used most by the Holy Spirit.