Chapter 22   Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) Under Attack

Because the CBF has been the most visibly successful moderate challenge to the Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, leaders of the SBC continue seeking ways to discredit the Fellowship.

Those who oppose the CBF like to accuse it of “being soft” on hot-button topics such as abortion, homosexuality, and biblical authority. These charges can be easily made since the Fellowship does not pass resolutions at national or state assemblies like other Baptist groups. CBF “silence” is twisted by detractors to mean approval. Perhaps the simplest and best response is that these accusations have the validity of attack ads late in a secular political campaign. CBF leaders have addressed these hot-button topics in Q & A formats. [135]

The SBC Fundamentalists do not agree with the concept of partnering in missions with other Christian groups who may hold differing views on theological issues. If SBC leaders are not in complete agreement and cannot control the expression of beliefs, they will not work with other Christian groups. CBF operates very differently. Its leaders need not completely agree with or control fellow Christians in order to partner with them in ministry.

Every year the SBC-funded Baptist Press seeks out the most controversial booth or break out session at the CBF national assembly meeting and that booth or breakout session becomes the focus of the Baptist Press story. Since the CBF believes in Baptist freedom, its leaders are reluctant to silence or censor new and controversial thinkers, so it isn’t hard to find at least one booth or break-out session that challenges traditional thinking. One year there was a break-out session on feminist theology, and suddenly Fundamentalists were implying that the whole CBF was amuck with radical feminists praying to the mother-goddess.[136] Another year Professor Fisher Humphries, of Beeson Divinity School, hosted a discussion forum on “Open Theism,” and even though Dr. Humphries was reluctant to endorse open theism, this break-out was represented by Baptist Press as representative of liberal CBF theology.[137]

Unlike the annual convention of the SBC, the primary focus of the CBF national meetings is missions, and the CBF national meetings mostly resemble the old pre-Takeover SBC meetings when missions was the focus of those gatherings. Because there are so many booths and breakout sessions to choose from at each CBF national gathering, the majority of those in attendance often do not know about a controversial matter until they get home and read about it in the SBC-controlled state papers. They usually scratch their heads and think: “Gee, I was there for the whole thing, but I don’t remember any of this being an issue.”

That’s because taking “positions” on controversial theological and political issues is not the focus of CBF meetings. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is a missions-sending agency for missions-minded moderate and conservative Baptists who want to keep the great commission of Christ the uniting factor in a Baptist family that can be both free in Christ and faithful to Him.

State CBF organizations have grown to the point that coordinators have been elected to assist in CBF work in the various states. There are eighteen state and regional groups that, while each is autonomous, relate closely with the work of the national Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

The CBF General Assembly meets annually in different regions of the country. The annual assembly is traditionally the fourth week in June. The General Assembly sponsors a variety of breakout sessions to inform and educate people on a wide variety of issues and interests. The plenary meetings give considerable attention to worship and celebration, and the leadership at the podium is strongly committed to diversity. Responsibilities are very intentionally divided between clergy and laity, men and women. 

Two Questions Asked of the CBF. Given the reality that the Fellowship started as a breaking away from the Southern Baptist Convention and the efforts made by SBC leaders to discredit the Fellowship, two questions frequently arise when CBF is presented and discussed.

Is CBF a Convention/Denomination? The answer is both complex and simple. In 1995 a Special Study Commission named by CBF was charged with addressing the question: “Should the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship become a separate convention?” Over 115 letters with opinions were received by the Commission. A survey of 500 CBF members had been conducted earlier in 1995. The Commission compiled opinion papers from thirteen selected individuals.  Those papers were compiled into a booklet called Findings.[138]

The 1996 Assembly participants were asked to vote on their preference. Those in favor believed it would give the Fellowship greater credibility; others that it was an indicator of what CBF had become. Those opposed were concerned it could place undue stresses within local churches having to decide between two of more conventions. Some believed the CBF making such a statement would be seen as trying to compete with the SBC. Others believed that the idea of “conventions” is simply a outdated understanding of church organization and not relevant to the 21^st Century. The vote was 95 percent not to declare CBF a convention or denomination.

In reality, the question, “Is CBF a convention/denomination?” works better when it is reversed. The real question is: “What does the individual or the local church want and need from the Fellowship?” For Baptists like Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, CBF is their “denominational home.” Others see the Fellowship as a “convention” because it offers retirement services through its Benefits Board. Others look to the Fellowship as a convention because of the number of missionaries serving in tough settings. Still others would count the more than 500 CBF-endorsed chaplains as a sign that CBF is a convention.

Others would see the Fellowship as one of several sources that can service and provide resources for personal spiritual growth and help with their local church.  For them there is no need to be “singly aligned” with the Fellowship as in the earlier convention days.

All Fellowship leadership is committed to the position that it is not important to tag CBF with or without a “convention” label. What matters to them is that the Fellowship is serving individuals and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given purpose.

Is CBF Pro-gay? Detractors of the Fellowship note that CBF has never passed a resolution condemning homosexual practice. That “silence” is used as proof that CBF is “pro-gay.” The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not issue “official” positions on homosexuality or other social issues, for to do so lies outside CBF’s stated mission. Rather than issuing proclamations in hierarchical ways that are foreign to historic Baptist principles of faith and practice, CBF seeks to be a resource to help churches deal redemptively with the complex moral and social issues of the day.

In 2000, the CBF Coordinating Council adopted an organizational policy on homosexual behavior related to personnel and funding.  

As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character. Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.[139]  

This policy is a very clear statement about CBF as an organization and its understanding of the sexual ethic in the Bible. Yet, this policy does not presume upon any individual or local church.

This organizational hiring policy was brought to the 2001 General Assembly in Orlando. Some Assembly participants wanted the policy studied for an additional year and then presented at the 2002 Assembly. Others thought the CBF Coordinating Council had developed a statement that reflected the preferences of the vast majority of Fellowship Baptists and yet respected the autonomy of any local church that differed with the CBF organizational policy statement. The question came to a vote: should CBF engage in a review of this policy decision for another year? The vote was 58 percent not to continue with a study and 42 percent wanting another year of study.

CBF detractors used this close margin to conclude that CBF was evenly divided on this topic of homosexuality. CBF detractors use scare tactics about this vote when describing the Fellowship. Since the topic of homosexuality is such a current “hot button topic” within some churches, it is important to explain how a vote could be so close and yet not be reflective of that same percentage of total CBF members.

Interpreting Close Votes. Consider the last “hot topic” your church addressed at a business meeting. It could have been replacing the roof, hiring a new staff person, a building project, or perhaps the termination of an employee. What made that topic divisive within your own church?

Consider a political election — and for the sake of presentation, let’s choose whatever party won. Is it reasonable to conclude that a majority of voters voted for that person or party for the same reason? Of course not! Name some factors:

• They liked the person — regardless of his/her political party.

• They were from the same state or region of the county.

• They were pro- or anti- with what the candidate agreed/disagreed with on a specific issue.

• They have always voted for candidates from that party.

• A spouse had a strong opinion and the other spouse “sort of went along.”

The same variety of responses was true of the 2001 vote in Orlando.

• Persons genuinely and respectfully disagreed with the CBF organizational hiring policy.

• Persons thought this seemed a lot like a resolution and they were opposed to any resolution.

• Persons believed CBF was dealing with the topic of homosexuality just because of pressure from Fellowship detractors—they were opposed to CBF acting re-actively to what the SBC did or did not do.

• Persons were unsure about the policy and believed that one year was not an unreasonable time for additional study.

• If CBF could have an organizational policy about homosexuality, would there be one the next year on obesity or on tithing or on . . . ?

Reasonable people understand how complex “hot button” topics can be. For those not present, there is a desire for a snapshot summary. In this case, detractors had a field day with “spinning” a complex vote into a simple sound bite.

CBF has developed Q & A presentations on several “hot button” topics, and those are available on the Fellowship website [140] or by contacting a state or national resource center. [141]

Perhaps the real story that comes out of the CBF discussion and vote on this 2001 subject is the way members were determined to respect each other even in the midst of deeply divided opinions. Whichever side won, there was a strong conviction that all belonged within the Fellowship and that there was room for honest disagreement.

Previous Chapter  |  Next Chapter

• info@SBCTakeover.com •