Avoiding Evil

This is the second part of The “Controversy” in the SBC. If you have not read Part I, please go back and read it before reading Part II.

In 1998 there was a “contrast” between SBC and CBF published by the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association (MBLA) which was based off of a fully documented publication entitled: Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: Serious Questions for Serious Consideration. The MBLA published their contrast in order to provide a brief contrasting format of the significant differences between the leadership of the SBC and the CBF.

As I list the differences in the leadership, written by the MBLA, I would also like to directly quote them on this issue:

“As this contrast is presented, it is important to note several things. First, we certainly acknowledge that no human institution is perfect and that the sin nature of man transcends theological labels. However, when the “celebration” of illegitimate “diversity” replaces commitment to biblical Truth as the basis of fellowship and unity, to what shall we anchor ourselves — to what shall we look to establish acceptable boundaries for theological and moral prescriptions? Secondly, while we do not suggest that everybody supportive of CBF is “liberal,” it is equally clear that liberalism has most certainly found a comfortable home within CBF. Likewise, CBF leaders who publicly identify themselves as “theological conservatives,” yet have participated in the exalting of unrestrained “freedom” above biblical Truth, have not only sent out an “uncertain sound” into the world, but have contributed greatly to a growing attitude that diminishes the seriousness of sin as well as the significance and necessity of repentance.

Lastly, while conservative Southern Baptists argued that the issue in the SBC controversy was theological in nature, it is important to note that theological liberalism does not operate in a vacuum or in a void, but that it manifests itself in various ways. This contrast demonstrates clearly that CBF is full of the manifestations of theological liberalism and provides a glimpse at what the Southern Baptist Convention WOULD LIKELY HAVE LOOKED LIKE HAD THE “CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE” NEVER TAKEN PLACE

The SBC has no leaders that deny the deity of Christ, the need for His sacrificial death or the importance of His virgin birth.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no feminist theologian leaders calling for the worship of the “Christ-Sophia.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders calling for the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders declaring that God sometimes commands a woman to abort her unborn child for the purpose of population control.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders advocating federal funding for abortions or the elimination of parental notification and parental consent laws so minors can have an abortion without their parent’s knowledge.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders proclaiming that the Bible does not condemn all forms of homosexual behavior.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders calling for the ordination of women as senior pastors.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have worked in “coalition efforts” with Penthouse International, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Planned Parenthood.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders who refer to God as “Mother.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have signed a declaration stating that Biblical scholarship is an area of common ground between Baptists and atheistic “secular humanists.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have worked for the passage of such pro-homosexual legislation as the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) granting minority-status to homosexuals/bisexuals based solely on their sexual behavior.

But CBF does.

The SBC does not embrace churches that ordain or “marry” homosexual persons.

But CBF does

The SBC is aligned with no organization whose leaders have openly declared their support of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

But CBF is.

The SBC is aligned with no organization that gave all of its “mission grants” (in 1997) to churches that welcome and affirm homosexuality.

But CBF is.

The SBC is aligned with no organization whose top leader has defended the reproduction and distribution of child pornography.

But CBF is.

The author of this MBLA material is Roger Moran. Soon after much of this written material was released Moran received a letter from CBF coordinator Dr. Daniel Vestal. Vestal requested that Moran publicly recant and apologize for the material that was written about the CBF. “So, I appeal to you as a Christian brother to stop these salacious and damaging attacks…I ask that you stop the inflammatory language and the seeping generalizations…Stop accusing us of endorsing child pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. We have never done so and are trying to join hands with other Christians to resolve these and other problems in our society…” Vestal also sent a letter to Roger Moran’s pastor, Gary Taylor.

If you would like to read the actual letters for yourself they can be found on the internet, simply click the links below:

Vestal’s Letter To Moran
Vestal’s Letter To Moran’s Pastor
Pastor’s Letter To Vestal
Moran’s Letter To Vestal
Vestal’s Open Letter To Moran

Moran responded with a list of 15 questions directed at Vestal claiming public proof of the very things Vestal asked Moran to quit accusing CBF of. Here are the 15 questions that Moran asked Vestal. Vestal of course did not respond:

Does it not matter…

…that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently align themselves with Religious Left groups supportive of homosexuality?

…that the CBF-funded BJCPA played a leadership role in the production of an extreme pro-homosexuality political training manual?

…that the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America advocates the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that numerous members of the CBF’s Coordinating Council serve (or have served) on the governing board of Americans United, a participating organization in the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which exists to support and affirm gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that the CBF’s Coordinating Council includes the executive director and a board member/treasurer of The Interfaith Alliance, also a member of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which claims that its existence confirms the broad base of religious support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that the president of the CBF-funded Baptist Women in Ministry served (until recently) as associate pastor of University Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, which was “kicked out” of the Baptist General Convention of Texas for ordaining a homosexual as a deacon? (Kathy Manis Findley, pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a former president of Baptist Women in Ministry, received a mission grant from the Alliance of Baptists in 1997. According to Stan Hastey [executive director of the Alliance of Baptists], that church also has a “pro-gay stance.” Findley is a member of the CBF’s Coordinating Council.)

…that the CBF-funded, national, moderate newspaper, Baptists Today, operated for years out of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur, Georgia, which has ordained openly homosexual deacons, named a homosexual to the chairmanship of the deacons’ board, and ordained a homosexual minister?

…that Wake Forest Baptist Church in North Carolina — whose pastor, Richard Groves, served on the Interim Steering Committee of the CBF and from 1991 to 1995 on the CBF Coordinating Council — allows its ministers to perform gay marriages and has openly homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir and as Sunday School teachers?

…that the Alliance of Baptists, which claims to have “provided much of the leadership of the [Cooperative Baptist] Fellowship,” has openly declared its support of homosexuality, giving all six mission grants in 1997 to churches that “have a pro-gay stance?” (Kathy Manis Findley’s church was one of those churches.)

…that you, Dr. Vestal, as CBF coordinator served on the BJCPA board of directors with Carole Shields, president of People for the American Way, whose organization has been working in the courts to legalize homosexual marriages?

…that the BJCPA, which receives about a quarter-million dollars each year from the CBF, played a significant role in an extreme pro-homosexuality AIDS conference sponsored by the AIDS National Interfaith Network (ANIN), an organization headed up by two homosexual men?

…that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet, which recommended ANIN as an AIDS resource, re-defines the family to include “gay families and lesbian families” by virtue of their “enduring covenants?”

…that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet declares that: “We do not choose our sexual orientation, but rather we ‘awaken’ to it?”

…that former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Paul Duke (a leading Baptist advocate for biblical acceptance of homosexuality and [formerly] a professor of New Testament at the CBF-funded McAfee School of Theology at Mercer) states in his two part series entitled: “Homosexuality and the Church,” that: “Having taken the time to study the [biblical] texts, I cannot with confidence say that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual behavior?” (Dr. Duke led a CBF Pre-Assembly Institute by the same title at the 1994 CBF General Assembly)

…that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently oppose conservative Christian organizations that have stood firm regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior (organizations like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Don Wildmon’s American Family Association, Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women for America…), referring to such groups as the “Radical Religious Right?” (In 1995, it was you, Dr. Vestal, that signed the statement published by the CBF-funded Center for Christian Ethics, condemning the “Radical Religious Right,” stating that: “We are alarmed because the Radical Religious Right poses significant dangers to our churches, our political system, and our American way of life.”)

Vestal and many CBF leaders did attempt to slight the negative press on their association with homosexuality by creating a very weak values statement on the issue. Referring to CBF’s statement on homosexuality as “a middle-of-the-road solution,” CBF coordinator Dr. Daniel Vestal stated: “I do not want us to fragment over this… I don’t want anyone to leave over this.” In 2000 thru 2001 this was an issue in the CBF as many of its members rose up against the values statement.

It is also important to note that CBF published its own pro-homosexual “church resource” entitled: “HIV/AIDS Ministry: Putting a Face on AIDS.” Arguing that “sexuality is a gift from God,” and that it is the role of the church to “educate our children and young people about sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual orientation,” the CBF publication states: “During pregnancy, the fetus is developing characteristics that will determine the person’s sexual orientation. Therefore, a person does not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.” The CBF publication also redefines the family to include “gay families and lesbian families” by virtue of their “enduring covenants.”

The BGCT chimed in with their support of the CBF by issuing six articles found in the Baptist Standard. However, rather than an honest attempt to address legitimate concerns raised they simply attempted to downplay the legitimacy of the concerns by making statements like, “Does fact necessarily lead to truth? Do pieces of verifiable information always direct toward accurate conclusions?” Knowing full well that the concerns about CBF are public knowledge and therefore they could not challenge the factual accuracy of the MBLA.

The differences between the CBF and the SBC are fact and public knowledge, which cannot be disputed. Not even the major supporters of the CBF could deny the facts, and yet their leaders scream ’stop accusing us of the very things that we do!’ Why does the CBF want to hide their true face from the public? Why would they want to stop the MBLA from publishing information that spreads the facts to the churches? Maybe because the facts are ugly.

This concludes Part II as we have dealt specifically with the CBF. In Part III we will deal with the issues of the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000, which gave the CBF/Mainstream an issue to rally around. Stay Tuned…

Pressed

NOTE: I must give credit where credit is due! Most of this information is from the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association. They have given me written permission to simply copy the information but I chose to re-write most of it in my own words as I understand it.