Crawford Appoints Moderate-Conservative Panel
Vol. VII, No. 2, February 1994
Rev. Ron Crawford, president of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, has created a 20-member "Presidential Council on Cooperation" which he hopes will help Virginians with varying theological viewpoints work together in cooperative ministries. "The purpose of the council will be to foster trust among the leaders of significant Virginia Baptist coalitions," he said. "These people will explore ways to enhance cooperation, trust and mutual respect in Virginia Baptist life. They will help us define and set parameters of cooperation for the future."
Co-chairing the council will be moderate Neil Jones of Columbia Baptist Church in Falls Church and conservative Tommy Taylor of London Bridge Baptist Church in Virginia Beach. Appointed as moderates are: William Wilson, First (for brevity "Baptist Church" will be omitted), Waynesboro; Michael Catlett, McLean, McLean; Julian Pentecost, River Road, Richmond; Robert Setzer, First, Danville; and Clint Hopkins, Churchland, Chesapeake. Appointed as conservatives: Sam Letson, Emmanuel, Manassas; Robert Reccord, First, Norfolk; Bob Melvin, Spotswood, Fredericksburg; Al Gilbert, Liberty, Hampton; and Charles Fuller, First, Roanoke. Appointed as unaligned: James Pardue, Bon Air, Richmond; Larry Frakes, Cool Spring, Mechanicsville; Gary Hollingsworth, First, Alexandria; Joel Jenkins, First, Charlottesville; and James White, First, Newport News. In addition, Crawford, Reginald McDonough, and state treasurer Nat Kellum will be ex-officio members.
Crawford said, "The council will explore concerns to see if we can balance divergent needs within a clustered community of faith. The point is not to bring us to the same place, but to explore methods of cooperation, given our different places."
[Editorial Comment: Probably everyone involved in the controversy among Virginia Baptists would like to be able in good conscience to put it all behind us and move into an era of goodwill, trust, sweetness, and light. However, we are solemnly warned about those who cry "Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:14). But, "Thus saith the Lord, Stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jer. 6:16). Note that the promise is rest for the soul, not necessarily for the body. We may be called upon to stand indefinitely, but our souls will always be at peace as long as we stand on the Lord's side and do not let our desire for the approbation of men displace our commitment to the Lord and fidelity to His Word.
Though Pastor Crawford almost certainly did not have this in mind when he spoke as quoted above, even to say "to explore methods of cooperation, given our different places" reveals an assumption that either (1) denigrates the authority of the Bible or (2) maligns the motives of conservatives.
Conservative Motives: Although moderate-liberal Baptists seem to have difficulty accepting it, nevertheless the motive energizing conservative Virginia Baptists is NOT power, prestige, or status. What stirs us to action (in many instances with great reluctance) is concern with the attitude that assumes man has the right to judge God's Holy Book, to decide which parts are true, which in error.
Conservatives readily acknowledge that many moderates-liberals are personally very "nice." They may be personable, intelligent, highly educated, kind, helpful, and sincere in their beliefs. And we also agree that they have the right to believe as they see fit and to act upon those beliefs. But personality, kindness, intelligence, sincerity, and similar qualities are not the issue. While such characteristics are welcome, they are not directly relevant in theological disagreement.
In effect, to ask conservatives to cooperate in Christian missions with those who believe the Bible to be basically a human book inspired in somewhat the same fashion as the writings of Shakespeare or Homer is to imply conservatives do not really believe what they say they believe.
Biblical Authority: To suggest that those who hold drastically differing views of biblical authority (errancy vs. inerrancy) can nevertheless cooperate implies that the status of the Bible is really not so important, that it may be well and good for scholars and theologians to debate arcane points of doctrine, but for practical ministry whether or not the Bible is inerrant, while perhaps not irrelevant, should be shunted aside in the interests of organizational and functional cooperation. In your editor's view that is, purely and simply, idolatry ... for the organization and its activities have then been given a place superior to God's Word.
Conservatives believe that biblical doctrine is the foundation of all denominational cooperation. After all, why have a Christian denomination if there is no doctrinal agreement? (Of course there are many activities for which doctrinal unity is not a prerequisite; for example, the fire department, highway construction and maintenance, operating a grocery store, repairing automobiles, and many others that come to mind.) Moderate-liberals on the other hand are fond of urging that we should all just cooperate in missions and not allow doctrinal differences to interfere with that cooperation.
Our English word "mission" derives from the Latin noun missio and verb mittere "to send." And we send in obedience to the Great Commission: "Go and teach all nations..." Ah, but the question is, WHAT are we to teach? Dr. Cecil Sherman, national executive director of the "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship" has said that the virgin birth must not be too important since it appears in only two gospels but not in the other two nor in any of Paul's writings and that he does not believe a seminary professor should be fired who teaches that Jesus was not born of a virgin!
Can Bible believing Southern Baptists be expected to unite in missions with those who hold such heretical views? (Webster's defines heresy as "Religious opinion opposed to the authorized doctrinal standards of any particular church, especially when held by a person holding the same general faith, and tending to promote schism or separation; lack of orthodox or sound belief; rejection of, or erroneous belief in regard to, some fundamental religious doctrine or truth.")
Missions upon any basis other than a God-breathed, inerrant Bible is a farce, a travesty, not a Christian endeavor at all but only a social do-good effort. Now social improvement efforts have their place, but they should not masquerade as Christian missions. In a Baptist context it is not the organization that is important. Nor is the aid function primary (although the physical help rendered is significant in and of itself). Our Christ-commanded task is to "go and teach." Everything else is subordinate to what we teach, and what we teach depends upon our view of the Bible.
We need but look around us at once great denominations which have departed from their former biblical stance to see how departure from the Bible destroys witness and ultimately cripples the organizational idol which displaced God's Word. The fatal products of errancy are universalism (the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved), religious pluralism (the idea that all religions lead to God), and – inevitably – the withering away of the missionary imperative.
In conclusion, cooperation is important but fidelity to God's Word infinitely more so. Every good wish to the new council, but everyone involved should be clear that there is only one valid basis for genuine cooperation among Bible-believing Baptists: complete fidelity to the perfect Word of God. That is really all conservatives seek: fidelity to the perfect Word of God. Is that too much to ask?]