Daniel Vestal, Coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, issued a statement recently that indicated he agreed with Southern Baptist reports that criticized the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for promoting "heresy." The reports were about statements that questioned the traditional understanding of the divinity of Christ at a General Assembly workshop. The statements were made by John Killinger, a workshop speaker who is not a Baptist.
James Smith, editor of a Southern Baptist newspaper, accused CBF of promoting heresy and declared that "the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is no longer truly Christian."
Responding to Smith's criticism, Vestal apologized for giving Killinger a "platform at the general assembly" and said "If we had known then what we know now about his Christology, he would not have been invited." He promised to "do more due diligence in the future." Apparently, Vestal envisions CBF creating some process or procedure for examining and approving the theological orthodoxy of all future speakers at General Assembly workshops.
If we are going to start acting like Southern Baptists, why don't we just fold up our tent and go back to the loving arms of the SBC? Southern Baptists are notorious for refusing to discuss theology with anyone who gives voice to an opinion contrary to their version of orthodoxy.
I, for one, am weary of CBF being more concerned about its reputation among Southern Baptists than about its reputation among the peoples with whom we must share the gospel. I don't agree with Killinger's low Christology any more than Vestal does, but Killinger is expressing opinions that are prevalent in our society. We have a moral and theological obligation to be in dialogue with those who differ from us in order to learn how to more effectively give account of the hope that we have within us (1 Peter 3:15). We will never be able to do that unless we are exposed to the best and brightest minds that differ from us.
If you want a church with paternalistic leaders who will give you a second-hand heirloom faith and then shelter you from the doubts and questions of dissenters, you are looking for the Southern Baptist Convention.
Cooperative Baptists prefer to assume personal responsibility for our own faith and we are not afraid to face the questions and doubts that come from exposure to contrary opinions.
2 comments:
Amen, Bruce! I have all the respect in the world for Daniel Vestal, but I emphatically disagree with his decision to exercise such control over future speakers. We can't afford to shut off dialogue with those with whom we disagree. The danger, of course, is that we might just learn something from them! But maybe we could stand to learn a thing or two. After all, most of us don't have the "crystal clear" insight of a Paige Patterson. In fact, I thank God every day that I don't have Paige Patterson's insight!
This is very similar to the way Vestal railroaded the 2000 statement through the CBF that disallowed gay or lesbian missionaries. It was done without input from the membership and attempts to object from the floor were ruled out of order. It was done to woo the Texas moderate Baptists into the CBF, but didn't work.
That was the last time anyone from our congregation had anything to do with CBF and is why I am glad we are associated with the Alliance of Baptists. The CBF keeps trying to reinvent the SBC of 1979--if not in structure, at least in theological culture. It needs to look to the future.
Incidentally, that same CBF in 2000, I had been invited to give a workshop on the death penalty in which I argued for its abolition. Because of objections from a few people, it was the only workshop whose tapes were not sold as resources and nothing was ever reported of it, later. Censorship of all controversy--how unbaptistic.
I don't know Killinger's Christology, but vetting speakers like Vestal proposes treats CBF folk as children who cannot be risked exposure to "dangerous" ideas. It is a direct denial of the priesthood of believers.
Good luck with that Vestal magisterium.
Post a Comment