I appreciate the work on movements that my friend StephenCurrie has allowed me to share in recent blogs.
He ends his comments on the nature of “Gospel movements” with these conclusions:
“God invites human effort, and God
does work through leaders and churches that care about restoration and
reform. But it is God who provides the
source of movement energy through the Holy Spirit. So we must pray fervently. We must sow the Gospel widely and faithfully
without the baggage of nuanced theological dogma or complex church practices
that are more cultural than they are biblical.
Then, when the Holy Spirit stirs to generate a Gospel movement, Gospel seeds
can germinate seemingly spontaneously in unexpected places. And we can be in the right place at the right
time to be part of something big that only God can do.”
I got the question again last
week: “What do you think the future of
CBF is?” We have at least gotten beyond
the other question: “Do you think CBF is
going to make it?” We have talked about
CBF for several years as a movement rather than a denomination, so perhaps the
question should be “Is the movement going to continue and grow in the future?” I don’t have a hard and fast answer, but as I
review Stephen’s comments over the last several blogs, I find a rubric to
attempt to answer the question.
First, are we developing leaders
indigenous to the movement? The answer
is definitely “Yes.” The first two
executive coordinators came out of the conflict among Baptists in the south. Both Cecil Sherman and Daniel Vestal were
well-known denominational leaders with a stake in the status quo who took the courageous
action of “shaking the dust off their feet” and moving on. Sherman was the community organizer who
mobilized moderate Baptists and churches.
Vestal was the strong pastoral presence who helped members of the
movement deal with their grief. We now
have a new generation of leaders for a new task—maintaining the momentum. Many of them have come to maturity after the
birth of the CBF movement, so they don’t have some of the old prejudices to
overcome and can concentrate on nurturing the movement in new and creative
ways.
Second, Stephen suggests that “the
energy of movements is generative.” From
the perspective of “putting new wine into new wineskins,” the jury is still out
for CBF. Certainly CBF’s emphases on
incarnational missions, the missional church, and women in ministry have breathed
new life into many Baptist churches and organizations, but we have thus far
failed to embrace the ”radical transformation” that he identifies as inherent
in Gospel movements. Perhaps my view is
skewed as “an old guy” who has been in denominational life too long. Others with fresher eyes may have a different
perspective. I still wonder how open we are to real and sustainable change.
Third, Stephen suggests that
movements are spiritual and arise spontaneously. I must affirm that there is much in the life
and history of the CBF movement that can only be credited to the work of the
Holy Spirit. Doors have opened, people
have made sacrifices, and ministries have been birthed in unexpected and
unplanned ways. CBF people have been
good about responding to this work of the Spirit. We have been “at the right place at the right
time,” as Stephen says.
Fourth, movements employ simple
patterns of church life and spiritual practice “without a lot of baggage” according
to Stephen. We are not there yet. CBF was initially a grass roots movement,
arising from churches and individuals who wanted “to do a new thing.” Movements transition quickly into an
organizational phase and then an institutional phase. This is not bad in and of itself. Coherent structures are needed in a modern world
in order to accomplish certain goals.
The danger is that such structures encourage a gate keeping mentality
rather than a permission giving approach.
They discourage rather than encourage the work of the Spirit. CBF has
recently adopted a new organizational structure that promises to continue to give
voice to the grass roots and to encourage cooperation among moderate Baptists. The way that this is implemented and practiced
will determine whether we meet this test of being “a Gospel movement.”
When I was asked about the future of
CBF, my response went something like this:
“CBF is going to fulfill a special need for churches in the coming days. It will never become a denomination like the
old Southern Baptist Convention was, but the new SBC is not the denomination
that the old SBC was. It is no longer as
horizontally integrated or cohesive as it once was and will never be again. Churches have to make more decisions for
themselves and need different kinds of partners.”
Can CBF grow and prosper in the
coming days while maintaining a movement mentality? Only time will tell.
(You can read Stephen's complete paper here.)
(You can read Stephen's complete paper here.)
Comments