Contrasts

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                            Vol. III, No. 1, January 1990

Conservatives in Virginia tend to forget we live in the most liberally inclined Southern Baptist state. This fact was dramatically emphasized recently by the strikingly different results of the BGAV convention and that of Indiana Baptists.

Virginia Baptists rejected conservative nominees for state office whereas conservatives were elected to all positions in Indiana.

The Virginia budget, by making the $660,000 annuity allocation a "preferred item" (that is, the entire $660,000 is exempt from the Cooperative Program percentages), has the effect of decreasing the percentage of donations going to SBC causes (such as foreign and home missions and support of our seminaries) from the previous 38% to 36.46%, assuming the entire budget amount of $16,300,000 is received. If less than that is donated, the percentage impact on the SBC portion is greater. For example, if $15,300,000 is collected, the SBC percentage of the total declines to 30.62%. On the other hand Indiana Baptists increased their per cent going to the SBC by 0.25%.

Virginia increased the direct allocation of funds to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs by 25%, from $6,000 last year to $7,500. Indiana has no such line item, and they passed a resolution supporting "the Executive Committee's recent decision to expand the program assignment of the Christian Life Commission to give it authority to act on religious liberty issues," that is, to move the responsibility from the BJCPA to the Christian Life Commission.

BGAV messengers passed a resolution strongly affirming "the leaders in our convention who have experienced emotional pain in recent months" and challenging "the trustees of our institutions to deal with their agency heads in a Christ-like manner..." Indiana messengers "...resolved that we support Jerry Vines' recent request that all seminaries follow the Peace Committee's recommendation that, 'The trustees determine the theological positions of seminary administrators and faculty members...', thereby giving us as Southern Baptists a safe-guard to insure doctrinal integrity in our seminaries." In a separate resolution Indiana messengers affirmed "...the recent steps taken by our Southern Baptist Convention boards in urging our Southern Baptist agency heads to refrain from partisan denominational involvement."

The Virginia "Report of the Special Committee on the Denominational Crisis" states that "...Your committee feels the BGAV should move from a plan of 'negative designation' toward a more comprehensive, positive plan of cooperative missions giving which includes several options for missions support." The Report then describes four possible categories of gifts which all in all facilitate moving away from the historic Cooperative Program (CP) concept back toward the associational missions typical of pre-CP times. In contrast Indiana Baptists passed a resolution affirming CP goals, noting that "the proliferation of designated giving (at the expense of the Cooperative Program) is injurious and if left unchecked could lead to the death of the Cooperative Program effort" and "resolved that we also encourage our sister state conventions and fellowships to increase undesignated Cooperative Program giving."

Perhaps other contrasts could be found, but the above suffice to demonstrate the stark differences between Virginia and some other states. Virginia conservatives can take heart that we are not isolated. Indeed, having won the SBC presidency eleven years in a row, we have graphic evidence that a majority of Southern Baptists support the conservative resurgence.