Cecil Sherman, the first coordinator of the Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship, said, “The son comes up at different times for different
people.” He was commenting on that fact
that not everyone perceived the changes in Baptist life in the south at the same
time and was leaving the door open for other Baptists to join the Fellowship
movement.
I have been reminded of this recently as friends who have
continued to support traditional Baptist structures in our state have found
themselves cast aside because they do not agree with the predominant agenda
being pursued by those entities. Twenty
years after many Baptists, including myself, turned their backs on the old way
of doing things, they are ready to move on.
The sun has come up for them. I
applaud their decision and identify with the grieving process they are going
through.
At least one acquaintance has suggested to me that this
is a good time for Fellowship Baptists to take advantage of this
disillusionment and seek to enlist these folks for the moderate cause. Now, I realize that part of Cecil Sherman’s
agenda when he became coordinator was to try to help many “big steeple” pastors
to see that their churches really were moderate and convince them to join the
CBF movement. Basically, he was asking them
to change teams. Times have changed, however,
and I doubt the effectiveness of that strategy today.
Why? Because there
are a number of “teams”—potential partners—with which Baptist churches may
affiliate and it is very possible to be part of more than one team at a time. In addition to the Southern Baptist
Convention, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Alliance of Baptists,
there are some states with two or three Baptist organizations, church networks
(like the Willow Creek Association), free-standing Baptist entities (colleges
and universities as well as groups like ethicsdaily.com, Plantersville, and
Baptist Women in Ministry) and ministry specific organizations (Habitat for
Humanity, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Samaritan’s Purse, and others) with which
churches can work.
The greatest danger in such affiliations is that a church
will chose to become partners with a ministry because of the work they are
doing without considering the group’s doctrinal and ethical commitments. One particular non-Baptist organization with
a strong seasonal ministry among many Baptist churches is very conservative and
openly antagonistic toward other world religions, but they faithfully and aggressively
collect information from a number of moderate Baptists for their extensive data
base. Churches that often question the
doctrinal stance of Fellowship and Alliance Baptists give groups like one free
access to their congregations without question.
Some moderate Baptists still cling to the hope of that a congregation
will declare its unwavering allegiance to their particular group but such a commitment
is unlikely. There are too many options and churches have been “burned” too
often. Baptist churches, practicing a
congregational polity, are free to choose not only local partners but national
and international partners as well. With
this freedom comes a great deal of responsibility. Whether congregations and their leaders realize
this responsibility is the unanswered question.
Comments