Cecil Sherman, former coordinator for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, is often quoted as comparing the young Baptist organization’s development to the frightful image of building an airplane while flying it. Despite this grow-as-you-go approach and the heavy artillery launched steadily by irrational opponents, the Fellowship for the most part has done well to avoid crashes.

However, at one unexpected point in the otherwise superb General Assembly in Grapevine, Texas, this summer, CBF leaders stripped a gear. The episode did not deserve a “Mayday” call, but neither should it be ignored. Lessons can be learned.

During a July 1 plenary session, CBF participants were asked to approve a nearly $16.5 million operating budget, a slate of officers, some changes to the Fellowship’s constitution and bylaws, and a much-anticipated report from the Partnership Study Committee. It was the latter that had drawn most of the attention prior to the meeting.

An ad hoc committee had been given the unenviable task of identifying, categorizing and suggesting guidelines for the many and varied partners related to the Fellowship. The initial report was amended prior to its presentation in response to concerns from some partners most likely subject to funding cuts.

The revised report was affirmed with little opposition considering the magnitude of the effort. Like all the recommendations, it had been examined and approved by the Fellowship’s representative Coordinating Council prior to the assembly.

What seemed to catch CBF leaders by surprise was the considerable concern of some participants regarding the language changes to the organization’s constitution — particularly in the purpose statement listed as Article II.

The assembly was asked — and approved with about 60 percent voting in favor — to change the wording: “The purpose of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to bring together Baptists who desire to call out God’s gifts in each person in order that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be spread throughout the world in glad obedience to the Great Commission…”

The revised wording read: “The purpose of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to serve Christians and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given mission.” It matched up better with CBF’s current mission statement and materials, elected leaders said.

However, many active CBFers saw the change as weakening an emphasis on advancing the Gospel. Being told that the Great Commission was “implicit” in the new statement was not satisfactory to those who felt the need to be explicit about such an important commitment.

What the leaders missed at the moment of debate was the lack of hurry concerning the purpose statement. Perhaps they were braced for getting the Partnership Study Report approved — understandably not wanting to hinder the significant work done by the ad hoc committee over two grueling years.

However, a great pause should have been taken when approximately 40 percent of those in attendance wanted more thought given to the language change about the stated purpose of CBF. While the action passed, the Fellowship lost.

First it was like throwing red meat to the lions. Baptist Press, the public relations arm of Southern Baptists and CBF’s chief critic, devoured it quickly. SBC leaders predictably misrepresented the Fellowship with nonsensical statements about “the true nature of CBF” and their “eclipse of Christ.”

Second and, unlike the SBC responses, deserving of attention, I overheard one participant say: “Great. Now I can go back and explain why CBF took Jesus and the Great Commission out of its purpose statement.”

Of course, the revised purpose statement does not represent a change in anyone’s passion for the Great Commission nor does it alter the way CBF ministers to those in need and advances the kingdom. But neither would have holding the change for another year while taking seriously the concerns expressed by a goodly number of loyal participants.

Some critics feel that CBF is not open enough in its business practices. For the most part, however, the process for electing officers and approving actions seems orderly and accessible.

CBF has been wise to leave taking official positions on social issues and theological viewpoints to local congregations — the apex of Baptist life. Likewise, hammering out business proposals in committees and open breakout sessions rather than enduring long and divisive battles for the microphones in convention halls seems a more sensible approach — while giving opportunities for broader input.

The key is for leaders to avoid become too defensive about recommendations coming to the larger group and to keep a finger on the pulse of opinion enough to know the difference between a disgruntled few and a significantly concerned minority. In this case, it was the latter that was ignored.

No major overhaul in the way CBF business is conducted is needed — just a bit more sensitivity to those who help keep the airplane in the air and have to explain its course to those back home.