I was truly a dead man walking in my community.

I don’t mean spiritually. I don’t mean physically.

Living as a Dead Man

I mean that for everyone remaining at the church, I had died. Life continued for them after my funeral; that is, my announced resignation. My supposed friends continued doing the same things that I’d been previously invited to, only now I was no longer invited to join. Lives that I’d been previously invested in both as a minister and as a friend continued on without a hint of concern that I still cared for these people.

After all, I was dead. Life had moved on without me.

Sure, there were those awkward moments when I would run into someone and they would say the perfunctory “we miss you” and “we are praying for you” but then nothing more. It was the old adage: out of sight out of mind. But for someone to tell me they still wanted to be friends but never follow that up with actions, well, there is another adage: actions speak louder than words.

I have tried to explain this phenomenon to a few people, but only two actually understood what I meant. For the rest, I was told that this thought was stupid because I was obviously not dead and simply overthinking things. Meanwhile, my former friend groups continued to hang out together, without including me. I even had one friend tell me that though they couldn’t quite explain it, our friendship had changed and they didn’t know why.

The why was easy. I was dead. When I was forced to resign, i.e., my funeral, the person I had been died. Life continued on without me. No problem.

Except I was alive.

Losing Everything

Please understand that I am grateful for the few friends I still have even if those friendships are “inexplicably different.” But, in the proceeding months, I had to wrestle with why anyone said they were my friend to begin with. In so doing, I have come to learn a cold, hard truth: most people say they are your friends simply because they see you on a regular basis. Whether it is work related, or just running in the same circles for a season, I was there and they are there and therefore we are all friends. But is that really a friendship?

The truth of the matter was in my death, I lost some very close friends for a myriad of reasons, but I lost so much more than that. I lost my church family. I lost my community. I lost my identity. That is what happens when you die. The strangest part is I was still very much alive, albeit beaten down. What is more, I was left to lead my family through this trial even though I was heartbroken as much, if not more, as they were.

For being a dead man, I was hurting in ways I did not know were possible. It was as though a divorce was thrust upon me and I had no ability to defend myself. Meanwhile, the few friends that remained did not understand why I couldn’t just smile and continue on in life. The only tangible thing that changed they said was my career. The truth was I had very few people I could turn to. Even less (were there any?) who would actually walk alongside me through this journey. Rather, it was mine alone to trek because it was awkward and difficult.

I fear many Christians experience this Living Death. Like me, I am sure most experience this in silence. They do not know who they can turn to because everyone has fled from them. Oftentimes, they suffer in silence because they are ashamed of the accusations or maybe the guilt from legitimately sinful behavior. Regardless, they wander around in a daze not knowing where to turn.

Peter’s Example

The Apostle Peter experienced something similar to being a walking dead man. In Matthew 26:69-75, we read that Peter was asked three times if he knew Jesus who was being held for judgment and execution. We are told that Peter denied knowing Jesus three times and then, after remembering Jesus’s prophecy, “went out and wept bitterly.” Peter is not mentioned as being present at the cross when Jesus was crucified. However, according to John 20, Mary Magdalene told Peter and “the other disciple” that Jesus’s body was taken, so they run to the tomb to find it empty. It is not until Jesus restores Peter (John 21:15-19) that Peter regains his confidence as a follower of Christ.

While I wish I could say that I have found my confidence like Peter did his, I can say that though I still wrestle with being a dead man walking in my community, I am confident that the Lord Jesus is still sovereign and on His throne. I am confident in my salvation. And though I have numerous unanswered questions, I continue to trust in my Lord and Savior.

Why write this?

I guess my reason for writing this is to try to articulate my own pain and thoughts, so that others might understand. But I think most importantly, I want to encourage fellow believers to do the hard work implied by Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

In our social media, sound bite generation, it is easy to believe the shocking headline. It is hard to examine. Most Christians prefer to bury their head in the sand and pretend that everything is normal. The fact is, we live in a fallen world, and life is not always fun and easy, nor does life allow us to ignore the difficult and painful. Bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 5:2) requires the hard work. Awkward conversations are not fun, but they are often necessary.

Meanwhile, whether it is due to allegations of feelings or actual sinful behavior, lives are irrevocably altered. How you respond to someone with whom you have a relationship in the immediate moments thereafter will have a far greater impact, for better or worse, than you can imagine.

It is hard enough to be ostracized based on allegations. It is even more difficult to be left mostly alone to pick up the pieces and pretend as though nothing has changed. It is even more difficult when your remaining friends are acting as though nothing has changed except they will not be seen in public with you because all of their other friends are at the church where you used to minister. Truly, it is only by the grace of God that one’s faith, my faith, remains strong. Sadly, it is not uncommon for someone who has been ostracized from a church for either their own sin, or the sin of others, to walk away from their faith.

James speaks clearly on the matter: “If anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20). That is a hard conversation to be sure, but one that is worthwhile to the dead man walking in his own community.

           This paper has sought to show from the founding of the CBF that there were several differences between the CBF and the SBC, and those differences have only increased over the last thirty years. Though these differences may have appeared minimal in 1991, that is no longer the case in 2021. Shurden stated in his foundational address to the public that these differences were “critical.”[1] If the differences between the SBC and the CBF were so critical then, how much more critical are they today in light of the doctrinal, ethical, and missional trajectory of the CBF?

            As early as 2002, the CBF stated that they were a completely different denomination from the SBC when they sought to join the Baptist World Alliance. In their statement of unique identity, they said they “have separated [themselves] from the structures and organization of the SBC, and have a distinctly diverse understanding to the SBC of what it means to be an organized body of Baptist churches and individuals in covenant relationship.”[2] In so doing, they articulate 20 indications that they are “no longer integral to the SBC” including their own business meetings, strategic plans, organizational documentation and structure, and their own missions sending agency.

            They concluded their appeal by affirming “Though fully independent of the SBC and any other union, we do not declare that we are a denomination or convention, in that we are Baptist by denomination and a partnership of churches and individuals by philosophy.”[3] The CBF stated they were a “‘fellowship’ which infers that [they] are ‘a Baptist Association of churches and individuals’ in partnership for the advancement of God’s Kingdom.”[4] However, as documents such as the Illumination Project demonstrate, this distinction between a denomination and a fellowship does not prohibit them from making doctrinal and policy decisions that affect all of the churches who choose to affiliate with them. Furthermore, allowing multiple interpretations of doctrines and ethics, and encouraging unity despite those differences, is a doctrinal decision made on behalf of all members.

            As demonstrated throughout this paper, CBF source material, either found online or in the CBF Archives, demonstrates how the four founding principles, today called the core values, have shifted from a rallying cry for Baptists to focus on mission to an implied statement of faith.  This evolving shift has also laid the groundwork for an evolving theological understanding of major ethical issues such as abortion, marriage, and sexuality. Missionally, these values have been used by some to argue for a transformation of what the gospel is and how it should be proclaimed, if it should be verbally proclaimed at all. When compared to the SBC’s positions as articulated in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, it is clear that this evolving theological trajectory has resulted in increasingly divergent views on essential matters of the Christian faith between the SBC and the CBF.

[1] Shurden, “An Address to the Public from the Interim Steering Committee.”

[2] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Statement of Unique Identity,” October 2002, CBF Archives.

[3] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Statement of Unique Identity.”

[4] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Statement of Unique Identity.”

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

            The CBF was originally founded as an alternative missions sending agency to the SBC. Because this was the primary reason for the founding of the CBF, the literature and rhetoric of this time often centers on the mission, and therefore the Great Commission gospel work, of the local church. At the CBF Convocation in May 1991, Dan Vestal stated, “We have come to know God through faith in Jesus Christ. . . . We’ve experienced that Gospel. But we’ve not only experienced it, we’ve been entrusted with it.”[1] In 1993, Cecil Sherman clearly articulated the gospel in addressing the issue of homosexuality. He proudly proclaimed, “God loves you, sent His Son to die for you. You can be remade by the grace of God. You can come to a life that is pleasing to Him. This is Good News, and our business is to go and tell it.”[2]

            The CBF’s evolving view of the mission of the church as centered in the gospel message of Scripture is perhaps most clearly found in three key addresses delivered by Walter Shurden. In 1991, he stated the “mission task is to reach people for faith in Jesus Christ by preaching, teaching, healing and other ministries of mercy and justice. … Fundamentalists … allow their emphasis on direct evangelism to undercut other biblical ministries of mercy and justice. This narrowed definition of what a missionary ought to be is a contention between us.”[3] Shurden reiterated this stance in a 2011 address delivered on June 27, 2001, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the CBF.[4]

            But, in 2011, Shurden redefines mission as he redefines the gospel. He calls on the CBF to

            Find new ways to think of what it means to be ‘lost’ in our society. … Scaring hell out of people no longer works for churches, so a redefinition of ‘lost’ is in order if our churches are to have authentic growth. Loneliness and the need for community, alienation and the need for reconnecting, meaninglessness and the need for purpose, the inability to find a sanctuary for shame and guilt, and the deep, deep sense that one is not loved – these are the marks of lostness in our time. … If we do not believe that people live hellish lives today in homes that surround our churches, we will have little success in developing any passion and urgency for the gospel at any level, local or national.[5]

            Today, the CBF simply states that, “God calls and equips us to spread the hope of Jesus Christ to the least evangelized, most marginalized people on earth. Whether we’re feeding the hungry, lifting up the voiceless, digging for water or helping families get back on their feet after a disaster, we and those with whom we minister experience renewal.”[6] Specific mention is made of mercy ministries, but not of the content of the hope of Jesus Christ, the gospel.

            Whereas the CBF called the SBC to task for not engaging in mercy ministries in the latter half of the 20^th century as part of a gospel ministry and mission,[7] today the predominant missional emphasis of the CBF has replaced the gospel of Jesus Christ with social justice issues. To better understand the lack of an emphasis on the gospel in the CBF, including discussion of missions, one can go to cbf.net and search for “gospel.” There were only 39 results with the lead result being “The Gospel Ministry of Advocacy,” a locked PDF file that requires personal information to access.[8] That document was primarily concerned with immigration reform and was from the fellowship! magazine dated February/March 2014.  Yet any mission or ministry that is not rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ as defined in Scripture (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1-3) cannot claim to be fulfilling  Jesus’ Great Commission, and therefore cannot claim to be biblical missions.

[1] Daniel Vestal, “Address,” The Baptist Fellowship, May 9, 1991, CBF Archives.

[2] Cecil Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again,” Baptists Today, April 1, 1993, CBF Archives.

[3] Walter B. Shurden, “An Address to the Public from the Interim Steering Committee,” CBF Archives.

[4] Walter B. Shurden, “A Decade of Promise,” June 27, 2001, The Shurden Papers Archives, Jack Tarver Library at Mercer University in Macon, GA (hereafter cited as Shurden Papers).

[5] Walter B. Shurden, “I Remember…I Hope,” Tampa, FL, June 24, 2011, Shurden Papers.

[6] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Learn About the CBF,” 2021, https://cbf.net/learn-about-cbf, accessed October 6, 2021.

[7] “[The SBC allows] their emphasis on direct evangelism to undercut other biblical ministries of mercy and justice.” Shurden, Jugular, 268.

[8] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, 2021, accessed October 6, 2021.

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

            The issue of the sanctity of marriage is a recent conversation in world history and consequently in church history.[1] This discussion, however, is not simply about marriage, but also about human sexuality and gender, and therefore the issues of marriage and LGBTQ+ rights are necessarily intermingled together. Unlike the issue of abortion, this ethical issue has been heavily discussed and debated by the CBF. These issues were also the subject of the first ever resolution passed by the CBF General Assembly.

            In July 1991, during a lecture delivered to the Wake Forest University Pastor’s School, supported by the CBF as “an advocate for theological education and the training of ministers in Baptist churches and other Baptist institutions and ministries,”[2] the lecturer stated that same-sex attraction “is not something to be celebrated as an (sic) legitimate alternative life-style.”[3] This lecturer concludes “by saying that the real wonder of the God revealed in the Jews and Jesus Christ is that He is the male God who does not act like a man. He is the masculine God of power who exercises it by means of the feminine virtue of mercy.”[4]

            In March 1992, during a panel discussion at Wake Forest University, Ralph C. Wood, current Professor of Theology & Literature at Baylor University, offered a statement on homosexuality in a discussion of “Theology, Homosexuality, and Convention” at Wake Forest University. He states, “Only in humanity does sexual orientation vitally matter: God creates us male and female. … Scripture calls us to join God in affirming the goodness of His creation by fruitfully multiplying.”[5] He concludes that “Homosexuality … denies the gracious order of God’s complementary creation: it rejects otherness in favor of sameness. … Such sex goes against the very grain of creation. Homosexual intercourse turns deliberately away from procreation.”[6] At the beginning of the CBF, the theological education one received at Wake Forest was opposed to same-sex marriage. 

            But it wasn’t just theological institutions opposing same-sex marriage at the CBF’s founding. Cecil Sherman, one of the founders of the CBF, stated in an article for Baptists Today dated April 1, 1993, that he hoped the “CBF will not make ‘a statement’ on this subject.” [7] He felt compelled, however, to speak to the issue because he was the one asking people to fund the mission work of the CBF and therefore wanted to go on record as to what he personally believed. He maintained, “The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.”[8] He said that he thinks “the gay interpreter of the Bible twists the first and traditional meaning of the text. Those who defend the homosexual using the Bible are poor interpreters who are more into American culture than they are into Bible intention.”[9] He declared that he did not believe the CBF would “appoint a practicing homosexual to be a missionary.”[10] His final comment is in response to the question “Are we against homosexuals?” to which he answered, “Yes, we are against the sin. But we have a wonderful message for those people. … God loves you, sent His Son to die for you. You can be remade by the grace of God.”[11] All of these statements would have been affirmed by any Southern Baptist today.[12]

            In 1992, the Alliance of Baptists, “a group of progressive Baptists and Christians committed to enacting God’s love and justice in the world,”[13] appointed a task force led by the Alliance President Ann Quattlebaum, who was a member of the CBF-affiliated First Baptist Church, Greenville, SC. The purpose of the “Task Force on Human Sexuality” was “to develop a working statement for consideration by the Board of Directors of the Alliance of Baptists on the subject of human sexuality with special attention to persons having a same-sex attraction.”[14] While legitimately calling for repentance due to unjust treatments of same-sex oriented persons, they also opened the door for acceptance of homosexuality as a God-approved lifestyle by stating that, “Scripture must be interpreted using all the gifts of human experience and aspects of human reason given by God. … Personal experiences, as well as the relevant insights of historians and social and physical scientists, are to be received as legitimate resources in our understanding of God’s truth.”[15] Furthermore, they stated “that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the experiences of the interpreters – individual and shared – in and through which the Holy Spirit may speak in new and insightful ways.”[16] This statement on the Holy Spirit’s continued revelation of new truth in the Scriptures would become a common one in this discussion.

            In July 2000, Dan Vestal, another of the founders of the CBF, wrote in an email to Lindsay Bergstrom that the CBF “has never issued any statement, taken any action, or spent a single dollar that was intended in any way to condone, endorse or promote the gay-lesbian lifestyle.”[17] Later, in October 2000, the CBF Coordinating Council adopted a two-paragraph statement on homosexuality by a 35-23 margin. The statement was titled “A Statement of an Organizational Value Regarding the Funding of Partners,” and reads as follows:

This statement caused an uproar in the CBF, and while the statement was eventually approved, it was amended to change the words “organizational value” to “personnel and administrative funding policy.” [19] This statement became the focus of the Illumination Project in 2016.

            In a March 2012 article for the Associated Baptist Press, Bob Allen reports that Dan Vestal defended the CBF’s ban on hiring gays from 2000. Vestal is quoted,

Except for a small handful of Baptist churches, the vast majority of churches that partner within CBF will not call/hire/ordain a practicing gay/lesbian Christian as pastor or ministering staff member,” Vestal said. “It is because of our desire both to serve these churches and extend their ministry around the world that CBF does not ‘allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.’[20]

Allen wrote this article due to the Baptist Conference on Sexuality and Covenant scheduled to take place in April 2012 at First Baptist Decatur, GA.[21] Vestal said that he could “think of no more ‘Baptist’ thing to do than to speak freely and lovingly in community as we each seek to define our own Christian sexual ethic.”[22]

            As the Supreme Court announced their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015, the rhetoric and consequent pressure to repeal the 2000 statement intensified throughout the CBF.[23] At the General Assembly in June 2016, “Suzii Paynter recommended an ‘Illumination Project’ approved by the Governing Board (formerly the Coordinating Council) to develop models for the Fellowship community to air differences not only about the hiring ban but also other hot-button issues dividing churches, denominations and society.”[24]

            In July 2016, Russ Dean, a pastor at Park Road Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC, wrote an article titled, “When it comes to same-sex marriage, it’s all over but the shoutin.’”[25] In this article, he claims, “Text and context go together, and as cultural, scientific and social advance give us new understandings, God gives us new truth — through the same, ancient word.”[26] Near the end of the article, he makes two comments that demonstrate the new understanding on this issue, and how different it was from the CBF’s understanding when it was founded.  First, Dean states, “Anyone just coming to the conversation should not expect to be allowed the same amount of time.”[27] The implication is the times have changed and there are no longer any valid reasons why one should not celebrate same-sex marriages. Second, he says about the Christian church, “As with too many other social issues, the Church is sadly proving itself the last to accept God’s continuing revelation.”[28] In other words, the truth of Scripture is not settled, and God is still speaking; culture must change our understanding of what the Scriptures actually say. 

            At the CBF General Assembly in July 2016, moderator Doug Dortch appointed a “five-member committee charged in part with guiding the organization through renewed controversy over its longstanding policy against hiring LGBTQ people.”[29] One year later, Charlie Fuller, the Illumination Project committee chair, said during a breakout session at the General Assembly that they “have chosen a specific process that uses secular language, but we believe it’s designed to hear Holy Spirit … designed to hold two opposing ideas in tension … We’re looking for a win-win, where nobody believes there is one.”[30]

            By September 2017, there were over 500 names added to an online petition urging the repeal of the 2000 ban, including twelve former moderators of the CBF. The petition read in part, “Today the truths of science, voices of reason, witness of experience and a fresh hearing of Scripture all compel us to live a wider mercy and extend gospel justice to those excluded by their sexual or gender identity.”[31] By February 2018, the moderator of the CBF, Shauw Chin Capps, claimed that the new hiring policy arrived through the research of the Illumination Project in order “to attempt to meet various CBF constituencies ‘where they are.’”[32] The very next day, Bob Allen reported that “The Governing Board voted unanimously to replace an 18-year-old policy barring ‘the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual’ with a new policy that does not mention sexual orientation.”[33]

            Although the CBF’s core value of church freedom indicates that denominational governance can never tell a local congregation what to believe, the discussion around the Illumination Project demonstrates that the CBF will instruct churches on what is in their best interests and encourage them to get on board about certain issues, at least when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. To further the acceptance of homosexuality, the CBF established the Affirming Network at a breakfast in June 2018 during the General Assembly. Bojangles Blanchard, a co-founder for the Affirming Network said, “The old hiring policy was replaced with a new one that contained no discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. While this is certainly progress, the problem was that an implementation procedure rooted in homophobia was also accepted by the CBF governing board along with the new hiring policy.”[34] The stated purpose of the Affirming Network according to cbf.net is that it

Will create a foundation from which LGBTQ church members and leaders can speak to their own unique experiences and advocate for full inclusion at CBF’s national level but more importantly, at the church level. This is where true heart-changing occurs because within churches, folk develop relationships with each other that erodes the “us and them” mentality of hetero-exclusivism.”[35]

In other words, the network will not be satisfied until every church that is affiliated with the CBF affirms the LGBTQ agenda in addition to same-sex marriage. Both this statement and the Illumination Project directly contradict Vestal’s statement sixteen years prior that the CBF has not endorsed or condoned the gay-lesbian lifestyle.[36]

Supporting the CBF’s Ethical Positions

            Clearly, though perhaps not always officially, the CBF has made its ethical positions known on matters of abortion and same-sex marriage. The CBF has repeatedly communicated their position not only through statements, articles, and conferences, but through the funding of pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ+ agencies.[37] The CBF continues to claim that it is ultimately up to the local church to decide for itself its position on these matters, but their national Governing Board (formerly the Coordinating Council) has increasingly made it difficult and uncomfortable for anyone who disagrees on the matters of sexuality and marriage to remain affiliated with the CBF through efforts like the 2012 Baptist Conference on Sexuality and Covenant and the 2016 Illumination Project. By giving to the CBF, a local church is implicitly, if not explicitly, affirming both a pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ values system.

[1] This is in reference to the legalization of civil unions in the country of Denmark in 1989 and in the state of Vermont in 2000, leading to the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage as constitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

[2] “Consortium of Theological Schools Partnering with CBF,” CBF Archives.

[3] “The Threat of Ideological Sexuality to the Gospel that is Not an Ideology,” Lecture IV, Wake Forest University Pastor’s School, Delivered July 12, 1991, Lecturer unknown, CBF Archives.

[4] “The Threat of Ideological Sexuality to the Gospel that is Not an Ideology.”

[5] Ralph C. Wood, “A Brief Statement on Homosexuality by Ralph C. Wood. Panel Discussion on “Theology, Homosexuality, and Convention,” Wake Forest University, March 4, 1992, CBF Archives.

[6] “A Brief Statement on Homosexuality.”

[7] Cecil Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again,” Baptists Today, April 1, 1993, CBF Archives.

[8] Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again.”

[9] Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again.”

[10] Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again.”

[11] Sherman, “Sherman in Atlanta, Again.”

[12] This is in keeping with an historical and orthodox understanding of biblical sexuality and marriage. See the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 sections 3 and 18.

[13] Alliance of Baptists, History, 2021, accessed October 14, 2021.

[14] “A Clear Voice – The Alliance of Baptists Report of the Task Force on Human Sexuality,” CBF Archives, 1.

[15] “A Clear Voice,” 7.

[16] “A Clear Voice,” 7, emphasis added.

[17] Daniel Vestal, personal correspondence, “CBF and the issue of homosexuality: A response to recent reports from Baptist Press,” July 2000, CBF Archives.

[18] “A Statement of an Organizational Value Regarding the Funding of Partners,” CBF Archives.

[19] Bob Allen, “CBF council adopts value statement ‘welcoming but not affirming’ of gays,” ABP News, October 13, 2000, CBF Archives.

[20] Bob Allen, “Vestal Defends the CBF Hiring Policy,” Baptist Global News, March 8, 2012.

[21] We were unable to find anything in the Mercer Archives or online as to the content of that conference, except for a few reactionary articles.

[22] Allen, “Vestal Defends the CBF Hiring Policy.”

[23] An internet search for “same-sex marriage” will show the number of news articles and opinion pieces at progressive Baptist news websites like BaptistNews.com were almost non-existent until after 2012, and only increased in volume in the following years.

[24] Bob Allen, “Analysis: A Timeline of CBF’s LGBTQ Debate,” Baptist Global News, July 7, 2016, emphasis added.

[25] Russ Dean, “When it comes to same-sex marriage, it’s all over but the shoutin,’” Baptist Global News, July 13, 2016.

[26] Dean. “It’s all over but the shoutin,’” emphasis added.

[27] Dean. “It’s all over but the shoutin.’”

[28] Dean. “It’s all over but the shoutin.’”

[29] Jeff Brumley, “CBF appoints committee to implement Illumination Project,” Baptist Global News, July 22, 2016.

[30] Bob Allen, “Illumination Project seeks light, not heat, on controversial issues, task force reports at CBF,” Baptist Global News, July 3, 2017.

[31] Bob Allen, “Former moderators sign petition urging repeal of CBF hiring ban,” Baptist Global News, September 29, 2017.

[32] Bob Allen, “CBF moderator says proposed LGBTQ hiring policy meets Fellowship Baptists ‘where they are,’” Baptist Global News, February 8, 2018.

[33] Bob Allen, “CBF relaxes policy on hiring LGBTQ staff, but maintains some restrictions,” Baptist Global News, February 9, 2018.

[34] Bojangles Blanchard, “Breakfast at CBF Launches Network for LGBTQ Inclusion,” Good Faith Media, June 21, 2018.

[35] https://cbf.net/networks, accessed October 6, 2021, emphasis added.

[36] See footnotes 16 and 17.

[37] Russell D. Moore, “CBF to Approve Funding for Pro-Homosexual Groups; Gay Church Literature Featured in CBF Exhibit,” Baptist Press, June 30, 2000. Though the CBF does not publish all of the agencies it supports on their website, the ministry referenced in this article, The Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, still networked with the CBF and was still involved in promoting the LGTBQ+ agenda through their organization as of 2017. See their 2017 Annual Report.

Ethics

            Just as the understanding and application of the CBF’s core doctrines has evolved, so has the CBF’s understanding of biblical ethics. Two of the most contentious ethical issues of the last forty to fifty years, in American culture and the church, are the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.[1] Though the CBF typically does not issue official statements on any doctrine or issue besides the four core values, there is still abundant evidence as to where the CBF currently stands on these issues.

            The sanctity of life encompasses both the abortion and euthanasia debate while the sanctity of marriage also includes LGBTQ+ issues. The CBF entered the already heated conversation on the sanctity of life in 1991, while the conversation regarding same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ issues became much more prominent in the twenty-first century. Despite the lack of resolutions on these issues (with one notable exception we will examine below), statements from affiliated organizations and individuals demonstrate the understandings of these issues that the CBF allows and promotes, and in some cases endorses.

Sanctity of Life

            The CBF does not have a formal statement on the issue of abortion, making it impossible to definitively state whether the fellowship as a whole is for or against abortion, due to their determination to unify around mission regardless of various interpretations of this issue in their churches and among their pastors and missionaries. However, when examining a number of organizations and people affiliated with the CBF, an acceptance and promotion of the pro-choice position consistently emerges.

            In 1997, John M. Swomley, Professor Emeritus of Christian Social Ethics at the Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, wrote an article for Christian Ethics Today, an ethics agency funded by the CBF, entitled “Abortion and Public Policy.”[2] In this article, he sought to “demonstrate that abortion per se is not morally wrong” and argued that “the Bible’s clear answer is that human life begins at birth with breathing.”[3] Ultimately, his argument was that “public policy in the United States … should be guided by scientific considerations rather than theological claims that are inconsistent with medical research.” [4] Obviously, Swomley holds the view that human life does not begin until birth, which is contra the pro-life argument that life begins at conception.

            Good Faith Media, a website resulting from a merger between Baptists Today (CBF-affiliated) and Baptist Center for Ethics (CBF-affiliated), retains an article from 2013 by Aaron Weaver, now the current CBF Director of Communications, asking if moderate Baptists will break their silence on abortion.[5] He writes, “Baptists – specifically those of us of the moderate and progressive persuasion – have attempted to steer clear of the abortion debate whenever possible.”[6] He questions why “justice-seeking” Baptists “do not insist on greater limitations on abortion rights in the same way that many of us urge restrictions on gun rights.”[7]

            Bob Allen reports in 2016 that “individuals aligned with the moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and progressive Alliance of Baptists say a woman’s religious views – not those of legislators – is what matters most in reproductive choice.”[8] Those who filed a friend-of-the-court brief from a pro-abortion stance included “Marie Allen, a member of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship-affiliated Lake Shore Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, and Jorene Taylor Swift, minister of congregational care at CBF-aligned Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.”[9]

            Finally, Kathy Manis Findley, a pastor from 1992-2001 at the CBF-affiliated Providence Baptist Church in Little Rock, AR, argues that “overturning Roe v. Wade would put more than 25 million women at risk of losing access to abortion.”[10] Her concern is for “the girls and young women who absolutely do not have the support they need to give birth, nurture an infant or raise a child.”[11] She continues by stating that if abortion is any more restricted and no longer paid for by the government, marginalized women and girls will face greater harm, as they would face certain poverty, though “women and girls with adequate financial resources always have had access to safe abortions and probably will continue to have that safe access, regardless of the law.”[12] Yet one month prior, she wrote another opinion piece for Baptist News Global arguing that Christians must become advocates for vulnerable children.[13] Comparing the two articles, it seems that she does not consider children vulnerable until after they are born.

            While none of these articles represent official resolutions on the sanctity of life, or claim to be representative of the CBF as a whole, they are statements from CBF affiliated churches, pastors, and most significantly, funded entities that receive money from all churches and individuals that give to the CBF, that articulate a pro-choice perspective. Though there are some frustrations on both sides that the Fellowship has never stated anything dogmatically about the sanctity of life,[14] the trend of permitting and promoting pro-abortion stances from a theological perspective is apparent. At the same time, those who are pro-life are told, “Of course, responses [to abortion] are always personal decisions based on each person’s faith, scriptural interpretation and moral/ethical considerations.”[15] On this important issue, the CBF uses the doctrines of soul freedom and Bible freedom to promote relativism in the Scriptures about life in the womb.  However, life in the womb is something the Word of God consistently affirms (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Luke 1:31).  

[1] The 1969 “Stonewall Riots” mark the advent of the LGBTQ+ movement and the 1973 Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision marks the beginning of the Pro-Life movement.

[2] John M. Swomley, “Abortion and Public Policy,” Christian Ethics Today, 1997, accessed September 2, 2021.

[3] Swomley, “Abortion and Public Policy.”

[4] Swomley, “Abortion and Public Policy.”

[5] Aaron Weaver, “Will Moderate Baptists Break Silence on Abortion?,” Good Faith Media, June 4, 2013.

[6] Weaver, “Will Moderate Baptists Break Silence on Abortion?”

[7] Weaver, “Will Moderate Baptists Break Silence on Abortion?”

[8] Bob Allen, “Baptists Take Sides in Texas Abortion Case,” Baptist News Global, February 5, 2016.

[9] Allen, “Baptists Take Sides in Texas Abortion Case.”

[10] Kathy Manis Findley, “Roe v. Wade in Real Time,” Baptist News Global, September 23, 2021.

[11] Findley, “Roe v. Wade in Real Time.”

[12] Findley, “Roe v. Wade in Real Time.”

[13] Kathy Manis Findley, “Another Reminder Why Christians Must Become Advocates for Vulnerable Children,” Baptist News Global, August 2, 2021.

[14] To date, there has not been an official statement by the CBF General Assembly on the matter of abortion.

[15] Findley, “Roe v. Wade in Real Time.”

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

Three Aspects of the Core Values

            The previous posts are merely a sketch of the four core values held by the CBF and therefore affirmed by its affiliating churches. However, three more aspects of these core values should be noted. First, there is nothing in the core values offering a statement about salvation, the gospel, or baptism except the phrase “Lordship of Christ.” At the very least, Baptists have historically been known for their belief in believer’s baptism.[1] By not including a statement about baptism, the CBF makes a significant departure from previous Baptist groups.

            Second, as the CBF refuses any statement of faith or creed, the four core values have come to describe and define what it means to be affiliated with the CBF. In this way, they serve the same function as a creed or statement of faith. For example, Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines a creed as “a brief, authoritative, formal statement of religious beliefs. The word ‘creed’ comes from the Latin word credo (I believe).”[2] Comparing the 1993 statements to the current 2021 statement, one can see how the language of a creed, almost by necessity, creeps into the core values.  From 1993:

• Bible freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, must be central in the life of the individual and church and that Christians, with the best and most scholarly tools of inquiry, are both free and obligated to study and obey the Scripture.
• Soul Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation of the inalienable rights and             responsibility of every person to deal with God without the imposition of creed, the interference of clergy, or the intervention of civil government.
• Church Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part.
• Religious Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation of freedom OF religion, freedom FOR religion, and freedom FROM religion, insisting that Caesar is not Christ and Christ is not Caesar.[3]

From 2021:

• Soul Freedom — We believe in the priesthood of all believers and affirm the freedom and responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of   creed or the control of clergy or government.
• Bible Freedom — We believe in the authority of Scripture. We believe the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, is central to the life of the individual and the church. We affirm the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
• Church Freedom —We believe in the autonomy of every local church. We believe Baptist churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whomever they perceive as gifted for ministry, and to participate as they deem appropriate in the larger body of Christ.
• Religious Freedom — We believe in the freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion. We support the separation of church and state.[4]

A comparison of the differences highlights how the CBF has moved from declaring “historical” Baptist principles to declaring a statement of their beliefs. It is unclear how their statement as currently presented differs from a creed or confession.

            Finally, this brief analysis shows how the lack of a statement of faith has resulted in a continual reassessment of what these four core values actually mean.  By not having a statement of faith, the fellowship is not bound to any particular interpretation of how to express or understand these core values, leading to progressive changes in how they are applied in light of what is happening in contemporary culture. We will see these changes in the following posts in regard to two key social issues of the last thirty years.   

[1] David W. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 46.

[2] Ronald F. Youngblood, F.F. Bruce, and R.K. Harrison, eds., Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary: New and Enhanced Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2014), 279.

[3] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 9, 23, 33, 45

[4] https://cbf.net/who-we-are. Accessed August 19, 2021, emphasis added.

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

            The final core value that Shurden listed in The Baptist Identity is religious freedom. Shurden states, “Religious Freedomis the historic Baptist affirmation of freedom OF religion, freedom FOR religion, and freedom FROM religion, insisting that Caesar is not Christ and Christ is not Caesar.”[1] This seems to imply separation of church and state in the historic Baptist sense that there should not be a state sponsored church or denomination. Shurden confirms this in his 1993 work, The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC, “In matters of conscience, the state has no place. In matters pertaining to the first table of the Law (the first part of the Ten Commandments), the state was out of bounds.”[2] This is a core value of all Baptists.[3]

            Yet this value has evolved over the last thirty years into something else altogether. During a June 2003 breakout session at the CBF General Assembly, Charles Kimball, serving as the chair of the department of religion at Wake Forest University, was summarized by the SBC’s Baptist Press as saying, “religious groups who make absolute truth claims might pose a danger to society.”[4] Kimball concluded, “When Christians claim their understanding of salvation is the absolute truth, they can cause great harm across the globe.”[5] The same news article shares that Dr. Bill Leonard, dean of the divinity school, Wake Forest University, argued that, “claims of Christian exclusivism boarder on an infringement of religious liberty.”[6]

            The CBF website today uses almost the same wording as in 1991, with an update in the language. “We believe in the freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion. We support the separation of church and state.”[7] Thus, while the current iteration of this value remains the same, it has been used to deny the exclusive claims of the Christian scriptures stating that Christ is the only savior of mankind, as if to state this is to somehow force a religious belief on the rest of the world.

[1] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 45, emphasis in original.

[2] Shurden, Walter B, The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC: Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993), 34.

[3] E.g., see the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, Section 21, as the first Baptist confession to espouse this truth.

[4] David Roach, “CBF Presenters: Absolute Truth Claims — Break Down; Imperil Religious Liberty,” Baptist Press, July 1, 2003.

[5] Roach, “CBF Presenters.”

[6] Roach, “CBF Presenters.”

[7] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Who We Are,” 2021, accessed August 19, 2021.

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

            In 1991, Church Freedom was understood as “the historic Baptist affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part.”[1] In general, this is simply another way of saying the best ecclesiology is that of congregational rule, upon which most Baptists would agree.[2] Where many Baptists would disagree with this statement is the affirmation of ordination of females to certain positions in the church. While Baptists have historically disagreed on whether or not females should be ordained as deacons, Baptists have typically understood pastoral ordination as limited only to males on the basis of passages such as 1 Timothy 2:9-15.[3]   

            Shurden continues, “No bishop or pastor, no civil leader or magistrate, no religious body or convention of churches can dictate to the local church. To permit such dictation is to abdicate freedom and obligation.”[4] In stating this, he implies that the CBF is different from the SBC in this regard. However, this is inaccurate. Baptists have long believed that if a local church is going to do ministry with another congregation, they need to know if they are working with like-minded churches or churches that differ with them on key issues of doctrine.[5] Baptist churches “have often joined together voluntarily in local associations and national unions or conventions,”[6] and each church must decide for itself what to approve or disapprove in such voluntary cooperation. Neither the SBC nor the CBF believe that local churches should be told what to believe or how to operate by denominational agencies or others churches.  

            Today, the CBF states, “We believe in the autonomy of every local church. We believe Baptist churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whomever they perceive as gifted for ministry, and to participate as they deem appropriate in the larger body of Christ.”[7] Note the change from ordaining “male or female” in 1993 to ordaining “whomever they perceive” in 2021, which opens up the possibility of ordaining people who identify as transgender or nonbinary, something that recently happened in a CBF affiliated church in Indiana.[8]

[1] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 33.

[2] E.g., Mark Dever, “The Doctrine of the Church,” A Theology for the Church, Rev. ed. (Nashville: B&H, 2014) 624-34; and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 1089-92.

[3] While the theological debate on passages like 1 Tim 2:9-15 is not the scope of this paper, “an all-male eldership has been the overwhelming norm in Baptist life.” John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 170.

[4] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 36-37.

[5] W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959), 16-17.

[6] Akin, Theology for the Church. Revised Edition. Edited by Daniel Akin. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2014, 653.

[7] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Who We Are,” 2021, accessed August 19, 2021.

[8] Martin, Stephanie, “Baptist Church in Indian Ordains the First Trans Pastor in Its Denomination,” Church Leaders, June 2, 2021.

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

Bible Freedom was defined in 1991 as “the historic Baptist affirmation that the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, must be central in the life of the individual and church and that Christians, with the best and most scholarly tools of inquiry, are both free and obligated to study and obey the Scripture.”[1] In comparing the CBF to the SBC, Shurden stated in his Address to the Public that, “We interpret the Bible differently. … [and] We also … have a different understanding of the nature of the Bible.”[2]

            Today, concerning Bible Freedom, the CBF states, “We believe in the authority of Scripture. We believe the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, is central to the life of the individual and the church. We affirm the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.”[3] Note the changed language from Shurden’s definition in 1993 to the CBF’s definition in 2021, including the removal of the words “obligated” and “obey.”

            While confessing their belief in the authority of the Scripture, what exactly this authority is or how it relates to the individual’s soul freedom is not explained. In discussing the authority of the Bible, Michael McCullar states in Basics of Theology, “Scripture contains all we need for understanding our faith, for creating a lifestyle of faith and righteousness, and for discerning correct theology and teaching. Divine inspiration makes the Bible an all-inclusive book of faith.”[4] However, neither he nor the CBF define what authority means, how the Scriptures relate to the authority of God, the relationship between one’s interpretation and the authority of Scripture, the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding Scripture, the role of Scripture’s authority in the church, or the role of the church in interpretation, if any.

            In contrast to Shurden’s definition of Bible freedom, that the Christian is “both free and obligated to study and obey the Scriptures,” the modern-day core value states that the CBF affirms “the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture.”  This statement further confuses the nature of Scripture’s authority, as it is one thing to be free to study the Bible for oneself and not be forced into believing particular interpretations of others, but it is another thing entirely to claim that every Christian has the right to interpret Scripture however they want. However, the seeds of this present understanding are found in Shurden’s early explanation of Bible freedom when he wrote, “Baptists insisted on freedom of access to the Bible and freedom of interpretation of the Bible precisely because it is the only means of arriving at the mind of the Lord Christ.”[5]

            Shurden does, however, offer a caveat in his explanation that is not found in the CBF’s contemporary explanation of Bible Freedom: “The right of private interpretation does not mean that any or every interpretation is correct. It does not mean that the Bible means anything or everything or nothing.”[6] Shurden goes on to call out those Baptists who “do not want to go to the trouble to be good interpreters. … We must distinguish between the noble privilege of interpreting the Bible for ourselves and the responsibility of working hard at determining what its authors intended it to mean.”[7]

[1] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 9.

[2] Shurden and Shepley, Jugular, 267.

[3] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Who We Are,” 2021, accessed August 18, 2021.

[4] McCullar, Michael, Basics of Theology (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013), 11.

[5] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 11.

[6] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 20.

[7] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 20.

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.

Shurden defines Soul Freedom as “the historic Baptist affirmation of the inalienable rights and responsibility of every person to deal with God without the imposition of creed, the interference of clergy, or the intervention of civil government.”[1] Soul freedom affirms individual choice and moral responsibility before God. Doctrines such as “soul competency” and the “priesthood of the believer” arise from the concept of soul freedom. Shurden appeals to E.Y. Mullins’s book, The Axioms of Religion, to defend the centrality of this freedom for Baptists, “E.Y. Mullins, one of the best Baptist theologians of this century, was right to speak of ‘the principle of individualism in religion.’”[2]

            Mullins explains this principle under the axiom that “all men have an equal right to direct access to God.”[3] This religious axiom, Mullins insists, “simply asserts the inalienable right of every soul to deal with God for itself. … [and] … It is based on the principle of the soul’s competency in religion.”[4] Mullins traces the greatest departure of this axiom in earliest Christianity to the practice of infant baptism. He claims that it was in the advent of infant baptism, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, where the abuse of priestly power was primarily witnessed up to the time of the Reformation. In other words, the abuse of the priests arose from the belief that people were unable to appear before the throne of God by themselves in Christ.  They could only do so with a Roman Catholic priest acting as a mediator.[5]

            Today, the CBF states almost the same thing concerning soul freedom, though it has added a statement essentially equating the priesthood of believers with soul freedom instead of distinguishing between them. “We believe in the priesthood of all believers and affirm the freedom and responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of creed or the control of clergy or government.”[6] However, this statement goes far beyond what Mullins intended, as soul freedom is now understood to “even allow for mistaken choices and wrong interpretations.”[7] This is a clear departure from Mullins, who stated that he wrote The Axioms of Religion “to state our case in the light of primary and universal principles, and to show the relation of the ordinance and polity to these principles. … taken from the New Testament. The authority of the Scriptures lies at the basis of our plea. We do not believe any form of Christianity which breaks with the Scripture as the revealed and authoritative word of God can long serve the interests of God’s kingdom on earth.”[8] In other words, Mullins wrote to prevent mistaken and wrong interpretations, not to allow for them. This understanding of soul freedom inevitably leads to theological confusion and an inability for a church to unify around a common confession of beliefs, as Baptists have always done. This becomes especially clear when this principle is combined with the CBF’s understanding of Bible freedom.

[1] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 23.

[2] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 26. For the source of this quote, see E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion: A New Faith Interpretation of the Baptist Faith (Philadelphia: The Griffith and Rowland Press, 1908), 93. 

[3] Mullins, Religious Axioms,92.

[4] Mullins, Religious Axioms, 92.

[5] Mullins, Religious Axioms, 92-93.

[6] Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Who We Are,” 2021. Accessed August 18, 2021.

[7] Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 27.

[8] Mullins, Religious Axioms, 26.   

Note – This article was co-written by Terry Delaney and Dr. Gary Shultz, Jr.