State Wrap 2002

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                             Vol. XVI, No. 1, January 2003

editor, The Baptist Banner

Southern Baptist polity (i.e., the way things work) can be incomprehensible to someone from another background or even to lifelong Southern Baptists who have not made the effort to understand the system. But it is not really obscure once you get the hang of it. As a brief summary I’ll describe three basic concepts which underlie SBC polity. (Remember, I’m talking here about polity, not theology. Of course, Southern Baptists are first and foremost concerned to understand and live by biblical faith, but quite different forms of polity can be and are adopted by denominations and churches who sincerely believe the Bible.) It is important to have at least a basic understanding of your denomination’s polity.

First is autonomy. That is, each level of Southern Baptist life makes its own rules and its own decisions. The four levels are the local church, the local association (depending on the density of SBC churches this area may be one or several counties), the state convention (usually one political state but in some areas where SBC work is not yet strong perhaps two states; for example: Oregon & Washington form the Northwest “state” convention), and the national Southern Baptist Convention. None of these levels can “tell” any of the others what to do or not do. Each makes its own decisions.

This autonomy does not mean there are no standards, no commonality in SBC life. Each level also has the right, indeed the responsibility, to insure that its members and affiliated institutions follow biblical standards as Southern Baptists understand them. Example: with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in American society and in many “sideline” denominations, the SBC found it necessary to amend its constitution a few years ago to exclude from membership any “churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior”. Note that this does not prevent a local church from affirming , approving, or endorsing homosexual behavior. They may still do so. But they cannot do so and remain Southern Baptist churches. This is no infringement upon that church’s rights, but it would infringe the autonomous rights of the SBC to deny it the freedom to set its own boundaries.

Each polity level is responsible for adopting and enforcing its own standards.

The second basic concept of our polity is ultimate authority flowing from the bottom up. We can term this concept decentralized authority.

All human hearts are sinful and tempted to pride. That is why so often we see politicians acting as if everyone’s income belongs to the government and any money they leave to their constituents a gift. That is why those in high positions in government, business, and denominational life so often award themselves outrageously large remuneration. The thought seems to be, “Look at the position I have. The common folk are really lucky to have me here. It is only right that I be compensated in accordance with my enormous talents and contributions.” SBC polity is wisely designed to place a limit on the ability of highly placed officials to misuse the system and to provide a means of correcting the subtle infiltration of heresy.

In the local SBC church it is the members who hire and fire, who approve or disapprove the budget, who vote to welcome or reject the membership applications of those wishing to join. These are serious responsibilities that should not be mechanically and unthinkingly performed.

In the local association, state convention, and national SBC local churches are members and send messengers to vote at annual meetings. Ultimately, it is these messengers who wield the power. And it is through the education and mobilization of thousands of messengers from local churches that the conservative resurgence in the SBC came about between 1979 and today.

Decentralized authority is also essential to maintain biblical fealty.

The third basic concept of SBC polity is cooperative missions. Prior to adoption of the Cooperative Program in 1925 each SBC entity was responsible for raising its own funds. The result was great inefficiency. Money was raised by special appeals to churches; so much so that virtually every Sunday every SBC church was faced with at least one special appeal ... and sometimes three or four in the same service! And missionaries and other denominational workers had to spend vast amounts of time, effort, and money traveling from church to church begging.

Today, SBC entities are centrally funded through the Cooperative Program. We normally have just three special appeals throughout the year: the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for Foreign Missions, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, and the state convention hunger offering. All other funding for our mission agencies, seminaries, etc. comes from the Cooperative Program.

The original CP idea was that churches would send donations to the state convention; the state would keep half for its budget and send the other 50% to the SBC. But very few state conventions have done so. Today only two give 50% or more: the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention beginning 1 January 2003 will send 52%, and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia continues our original practice of sending 50%. Nine other states (GA, AL, IL, AR, MD-DL, FL, OH, OK, SC ... arranged with the highest givers first) give between 43.75% and 40%. This year five states increased their CP percentages: NV +0.25% to 29%; NY +0.5% to 25.5%; PA-So Jersey +0.15% to 24.5% (the eleventh consecutive yearly increase); TX-SBTC +1.0% to 52%; and WY +0.25% to 32.25%.

One state reduced its CP percentage: TX BGAV -6.7% to 21%. (More on the BGav later.)

With this introduction, let’s look at the result of the 2002 state conventions.

Baptist Faith & Message 2000: In 2000 & 20001 17 states had affirmed the BFM 2000 either by placing it in their constitution or bylaws, or by resolutions of support. This year the trend continued. AR finalized placing it in their constitution with a second vote of approval, this time by a vote of 75.77%. The Dakota Fellowship (in this case “Fellowship” indicates the status of a geographical SBC component which has not yet become a state convention; the term has nothing to do with the liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) affirmed BFM 2000 in its new constitution and bylaws. LA added BFM 2000 to its bylaws 819-370. MD-DE messengers referred a motion to adopt the BFM 2000 “for faith and practice” to a committee for report next year. The state executive director said he wants to use the “Skycroft Accords”, which are very broad. NY will vote next year whether to adopt BFM 2000. Not surprisingly, in TX the BGCT convention overwhelmingly rejected a motion to adopt the BFM 2000. On the other hand, also in TX at the SBTC meeting ministry and staff members publically signed an affirmation of the BFM 2000.

Missouri maelstrom: And the beat goes on. In sum, 2002 has been a year of confirmation and consolidation for conservative Southern Baptists in MO. Every officer elected since 1998 has been conservative, and this year no liberals were even nominated. Undoubtedly a major reason is that during this year – as we anticipated in the January 2001 counterpart to this article “Doyle Sager, president of Mainstream Missouri Baptists and pastor of First BC, Jefferson City, said ‘A new Missouri Baptist Convention is on the horizon free from Fundamentalist domination.’” The new convention is now in being.

Associated Baptist Press, the liberal Baptist news service, reported that “350 Southern Baptists met April 19-20 in suburban St. Louis to launch the Baptist General Convention of Missouri.” But SBC Executive Committee president Morris Chapman refused to accept money from or recognize the BGCM as a legitimate Southern Baptist partner. Now the BGCM advises member churches which want to support the SBC to send their contributions directly to Nashville.

When we looked at MO two years ago, messengers of the original Baptist Convention of Missouri (BCM) had authorized their executive committee to seek legal opinion on actions taken by the liberal-dominated trustee boards of five MO agencies which had voted to elect their own successors and so become independent of the BCM ... in contradiction to their governing documents. The legal opinion was received – in fact, three separate legal opinions were received and all emphasized the strong legal position of the BCM.

BGCM representatives sought a legal injunction to prohibit the BCM from pursuing legal action, but recently a judge denied that motion. So BCM legal action will proceed.

In November MO messengers installed a new, conservative state executive director, voted that the $2,150,000 originally designated for the five rebellious state entities and which they had escrowed from 2002 funds should be used for state mission work, church planting, and loyal state entities. Messengers also removed from bylaws all references to the previous MO state paper, Word & Way. Finally, they defeated by an estimated 5:1 ratio a motion to instruct MBC to drop its declaratory judgment petition against the five entities.

In summary, the loyal Southern Baptists, the biblical Baptists have won. Skirmishing will continue, but we can praise the Lord for another major conservative victory. We should be deeply grateful for the devoted commitment of all conservative MO Baptists and especially the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association so ably led by their research director, Roger Moran.

State Roster:

Note: There is the possibility, even likelihood, of misunderstanding Southern Baptist terminology because we use the same words in two different ways. “Conservative”, “moderate”, or “liberal” may legitimately refer to someone’s theology OR to someone’s organizational-political stance within the convention. And some people who seem to be thoroughly biblical in theology (and hence “conservative” in that respect) may identify with liberals organizationally. As the terms are used in this article, I intend to refer to denominational stance, not theology. Exception: In some cases I may note that an officer is “theologically conservative”. This suggests that his denominational sympathies are unknown but that he is not expected to oppose denominational conservatives and may well cooperate with them.

AL: All officers are sound and the state is judged securely conservative, although the votes were rather close. Conservatives cannot relax but must continue to work.

AK: Alaska is reportedly mostly moderate. The 2VP favors CBF. The president tends to go with the crowd. 1VP of unknown stance. These judgments must be qualified, however, by remembering the 2001 vote in favor of the 2000 BFM.

AZ: The state seems to be moderate in outlook though not CBF-oriented. Two of the top three officers are reputedly moderate, though not CBF’ers. Apparently AZ liberals have successfully stolen Grand Canyon University.

AR: All three officers are conservatives. The state continues to move increasingly conservative, and CBF is faltering.

CA: The president is conservative and the two VP’s unknowns. A motion to remove “Southern” from the state convention name (the fifth attempt since 1985) failed by approximately a 60:40 margin. Another motion to remove a constitutional requirement that member churches “be in agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention” failed about 80:20 ... an encouraging sign. Conservative leaders are becoming more vocal. Officially CBF has nothing in CA, though judgment upon the absence of evidence can sometimes be dangerous.

CO: A strongly conservative state. All officers are active conservatives and there is no CBF activity.

DK: The Dakota Fellowship affirmed the 2000 BFM in its new constitution and bylaws. In new work areas such as this liberals do not thrive. It seems to take biblically conservative commitment to evangelism to grow or even simply maintain the status quo in such areas.

DC: One of the major developments of the last year, Banner readers will have tracked it through our pages. Briefly, the SBC through NAMB (the North American Mission Board) has been supplying approximately one-third of DCBC budget funds, roughly $500,000 each year. But DCBC often used SBC money in ways antithetical to our biblical stance. During the last twelve months this came to a head, and beginning in June 2003 NAMB will no longer support the DCBC financially.

However, messengers voted no budget change until a special March meeting when the budget will be reviewed and may be cut. In fact, it seems inevitable that it will have to be cut. Last year DCBC churches only contributed some $25,000 of a budgetted $125,000. also, some churches have withdrawn from DCBC or materially reduced their giving since the dispute with NAMB.

It is not impossible that the DCBC will cease being an SBC state convention altogether.

FL: Florida continues its strong conservative stance. The president and 2VP are conservative. The 1VP is a Jamaican, the first Caribbean islander to hold such a spot, and his stance is unknown.

GA: Liberals appear to have given up on the GBC; they no longer nominate anyone for state office. All officers are conservative. Again in GA, liberals have repeated their common tactic of trying to steal a state institution before conservatives gain a majority on its trustee board through long-standing constitutional processes. In GA it is Shorter College. The state convention averted dealing with the issue on the floor by referring it to the state executive committee. Reportedly about one-fourth the Shorter trustees agree with the GBC. Messengers did vote to escrow all Shorter funds until the problem is solved. Let’s pray that the GBC executive committee will stand as firmly as their counterparts in Missouri.

In other action, messengers defeated a motion to require half the state executive committee be laymen.

HW: Hawaii is currently marking time, but new conservative pastors are being called to churches. The president and 1VP are theological conservatives, and the 2VP is a strong conservative.

IL: A sweeping conservative swing is underway in Illinois. The president is an active conservative. The 1VP is unknown. There is no 2VP.

IN: A strongly conservative state. All officers are conservative. There has been only one CBF church in Indiana, University BC, Bloomington, which withdrew from the SBC and the state convention some time back. The 12-year state executive director, Charles Sullivan and his wife, Delilah, will retire in May 2003. Well done, Charles. May Indiana be blessed with someone of equal ability and biblical commitment.

IA: There are less than 100 SBC churches in Iowa. The officers are all theological conservatives. Two churches support CBF; both are struggling. The state is remaining the same; denominational politics is notable for its absence.

KS-NB: Has remained theologically conservative as are the president and 1VP. (There is no 2VP.) There is no CBF work apparent.

KY: KY is approaching a time of decision. The new president was supported by both liberals and conservatives but three years ago he was the conservative nominee and opposed by liberals. Did liberals support him this time because they knew he could not be beaten? We do not know. But he and the 2VP are conservative, the 1VP unknown. A motion to deny membership to churches that sever ties to the SBC was ruled out of order.

LA: All officers are conservatives, the president actively so. As noted above, BFM 2000 was added to bylaws by a vote of 819-370. They also amended the constitution to affirm the Bible as the “inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God.” Four state entities informed messengers of actions taken to ensure continued ties to the LA state convention. Finally, they defined a cooperating church as one giving to the state CP. CBF is fading. The two top CBF leaders lost their churches and moved out of state.

MD-DE: All officers are theological conservatives and the 2VP is also denominationally conservative. A motion to adopt the BFM 2000 was referred to a committee for report and recommendation next year. More conservatives are coming into state pulpits. The tide is turning.

MI: All officers are theologically conservative. The 1VP is politically conservative as well but not involved. The 2VP is involved. The state has apparently remained about the same over the last year.

MN-WS: The president is a conservative; the 1VP is at least theologically conservative. The 2VP is in the center. The state is about the same as last year. There is no CBF activity.

MO: Reviewed extensively above. Now strongly conservative.

MS: The officers are in the middle or just state convention men. There is no improvement visible in MS but some flashes of light from down the tunnel. A motion was made to amend the state constitution to “not allow anyone to be employed, elected, or appointed to positions with the Mississippi Baptist Convention if that person is currently serving in an employed, elected, or appointed position with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship”. Initially the motion passed overwhelmingly (a very positive sign) but later was ruled “null and void” because it violated constitutional amendment procedures. After discussion it was referred to the constitution and bylaws committee for report next year. We will watch what happens to that report with considerable interest.

There is another welcome development. For several years MS conservatives have been divided among themselves. But now conservatives are mending fences, and getting better organized. They have started a newsletter and have begun a website, essential and important steps.

MT: The Montana Fellowship of about 130 churches is solidly conservative with no known liberals in the state. They voted to move from fellowship to state convention status.

NV: CBF is not active. The president and 1VP are conservative, 2VP unknown.

NE: (New England) The president is an active conservative; 1VP unknown. There is no 2VP. NE is becoming more conservative. A few churches give to CBF.

NM: President and 1VP are theological conservatives, 2VP unknown. The state has not changed over the last year.

NY: The state is becoming much more conservative. The president and 2VP are strong conservatives, 1VP reportedly quasi-conservative. NY will vote next year whether to adopt BFM 2000.

NC: President is an active conservative. 1&2VP’s are sound though not movement conservatives. Conservatives have won two of the top three offices in seven of the last eight years. NC has four giving plans, A, B, C. & D. A & D give 32% to the SBC; B sends 10%; C nothing ... all of it goes to CBF. Messengers authorized a committee to study C and report next year. The constitution says one of the purposes of the BSCNC is “to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention”. The motion maker noted that recently CBF had declared itself separate from the SBC and that therefore Plan C should be re-evaluated.

Conservatives are slowly winning. Appointments are made by the three top officers working together. Conservatives need one more year of appointments as good as this year. Out of 4,000 churches only 130 give to Plan C.

NW: all officers are conservative. And the convention is becoming more conservative. CBF has no presence. BFM 2000 was adopted overwhelmingly last year.

OH: The president and 1VP are solid conservatives, 2VP unknown. The state has stayed the same, conservative. CBF of almost no influence.

OK: President is a solid conservative. 1&2VP’s are unknowns. OK is a conservative state though some leaders appear unwilling to take tough decisions. Mainstream (a CBF proxy) is present though not very strong.

PA-SJersey: The president is very conservative, and the 1VP an active conservative. 2VP is a layman whose stance is unknown, but he was nominated by a strong conservative. CBF has tried in the state but has made no progress. Notably, messengers approved a 0.15% increase in the CP percentage going to the SBC, the eleventh consecutive increase!

SC: The president is a movement conservative and the 1VP conservative, at least. 2VP is unknown. Already quite conservative, SC is becoming more so.

TN: The president is a solid conservative, the VP’s unknowns. TN is the only state convention where the president does not have appointive powers, which makes it very hard to bring about change. A committee studying the president’s role recommended that the president and 2 VP’s have a voice and vote on the state committee on boards and the committee on committees during their one-year terms. Also, the president would be given a three-year term on the executive board following his year as president. After much discussion the proposal received 58% approval, but as a constitutional change it required two-thirds and so failed. A series of tornados through the state may be the reason messengers this year numbered only 1,651 whereas last year 2,081 registered. In turn, the lower registration may have contributed to the proposal’s defeat.

CBF is active though not strong. TN seems to have stayed about the same over the last year. On the budget, 37.5% of CP receipts will continue to be sent to the SBC. However, a formerly preferred item, the church annuity plan, was put in the CP budget, so SBC will receive more money.

TX-BGCT: The re-elected president pastors a church which contributes to the BGCT, SBC, & CBF. The 1VP is immediate past president of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, and the 2VP is a lady who heads Women’s Ministries at Tallowood BC, Houston. She also chairs the BGCT Committee on Nominations.

The $50.8 million budget raises the undesignated funds kept in TX from 72.3% to 79%, decreasing the amount for world-wide causes to 21%. Churches may choose to send that 21% to the SBC, CBF, or the BGCT worldwide effort. [Note that churches choosing either of the latter two options would contribute nothing to the SBC.] About one-third of the BGCT’s 4,000 churches give the traditional 33% to the SBC, one-third to the newer Giving Plan, and one-third have designed their own plans.

A major innovation is that messengers overwhelmingly approved a new missions network, a not-for-profit affiliate of the BGCT whose stated purpose is to connect Texas Baptist to mission opportunities “with other churches, associations, institutions, Texas partnerships,” and various other organizations, said Keith Parks who chaired the subcommittee making the recommendation. Parks said, the network will be “inclusive” of all Texas Baptists who want to do missions. “We don’t want to be a stumbling block to anyone.”

When the chairman of the BGCT committee for which the study subcommittee worked was pressed to answer whether the network will be interpreted by others as a “denominational activity”, he said, “I can’t argue with that,” noting that he can’t say it won’t ever happen. He said, “There is no design in starting a new denomination. Whether that may happen someday depends upon how exclusive others choose to be.”

During the budget discussion the administrative committee chairman acknowledged that about 1,000 churches had moved from the BGCT to the (newer and more conservative) SBTC in recent years.

Motions to defund the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs and to adopt the BFM 2000 were soundly defeated.

A motion was approved requesting the TX Christian Life Commission to develop its own materials (thus making them that much more independent of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission).

[Comment: The choice of leaders, the defeat of these last two motions, the continued slashing of money going to the SBC, the move to the TX CLC producing its own materials, and establishment of the missions network all demonstrate the increasing speed with which the BGCT is separating itself from the SBC. Projection: These steps will motivate still more churches to depart the BGCT and affiliate with the SBTC.]

TX-SBTC: Obviously, all officers are committed and active conservatives. The 2003 budget is 56% above the 2002 one, +$4,964,000. Of that amount, 52% will be sent to the SBC, the largest percentage of any state convention. In contrast to the BGCT, SBTC ministry and staff members publically signed an affirmation of the BFM 2000 to express commitment to the values, beliefs, and doctrines of the SBC and SBTC. Jim Richards, SBTC executive director, said, “The SBTC is a confessional fellowship, and we unashamedly and without reservation affirm our commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement 2000.”

In 2000 SBTC churches baptized 7,717 people and in 2001 19,022. So far SBTC has planted 157 new churches.

SBTC is growing rapidly. In 2002 they averaged two new affiliations every three days. At last count (mid-December) they numbered 1,222 churches with four aligning in the last week.

UT-ID: All officers are solid conservatives, and no CBF activity is seen. The state has moved more conservative over the last year.

VA-BGAV: Beth Fogg, member of 2^nd BC (a CBF supportive church), Richmond, was elected president. Don Davidson, pastor of Mount Hermon BC, Danville, an SBC supporting church, became 1VP, and Karl Heilman, pastor Sandston BC, Sandston, 2VP. Sandston is also a CBF church. All were endorsed by Virginia Baptists Committed, one of several “moderate” advocacy groups.

The 2003 budget of $15 million is $200,000 less than the $15.2 million of 2002, but budget committee chairman Walter Harrow said that some items not included in earlier budgets have been placed in the 2003 budget making it actually some $500,000 less than 2002. The explanation offered for the decreased budget was: (1) the stagnant economy, (2) depleted reserves [in previous years rather than reduce the budget to meet lower income, reserves were spent to cover the difference], and (3) loss of churches to the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia.

[Comment: One has to wonder whether the single basic reason for BGAV financial woes is not the steady flow of churches to the SBCV. Recall from the article on the SBCV annual meeting in the previous Banner that the SBCV 2003 Cooperative Program budget is $6,000,000. If VA were unitedly supporting the SBC, the state budget would be $21,000,000! Thus, the theologically liberal and denominationally separatist direction of the BGAV has caused a budget crunch which gives every evidence of only getting worse as more and more churches realize where the BGAV is headed and exercise their church autonomy by switching to the SBCV.]

The World Missions-2 budget track, the default track to which approximately 57% of BGAV churches belong, once again reduced funds going to the SBC. Whereas in 1989 and earlier 38% of a church’s CP donations went to the SBC, in the 2002 WM-2 track only 11.32% did, and in 2003 only 7.85% will. [Comment: Apply this to your church. If your church gives $100 to WM-2, only $7.85 goes to support Southern Baptist national causes. And since the SBC assigns half of all undesignated receipts to the International Mission Board, only $3.925 of every $100 given through WM-2 supports our foreign missionaries. On the other hand, giving the same $100 through the SBCV would send $50 to SBC support of which $25 would go to help our missionaries abroad and another $20 would go to missionaries in North America. Which route would you prefer your money to follow?]

The topic of most comment at the BGAV meeting was Kingdom Advance, a new “missions vision” which has the announced aims of “stepping up BGAV Baptists’ state, national, and global missions involvement; aggressively identify and train leaders for BGAV congregations; and offer resources to churches in unprecedented ways.” It is the idea of the new BGAV executive director, John Upton, who assumed the position 1 March. [Comment: Kingdom Advance is, in my judgment, merely an attempt to distract Virginia Baptists from the true BGAV direction and to create new enthusiasm for the BGAV. But while parsley may decorate a dish, it is nourishing food that really counts. Continued atrophy is, unfortunately and regrettably, the most likely prospect for what was once a biblical and vigorous state convention.

WV: All officers are conservative. Only one pastor in the state seems sympathetic to the CBF. Under their new state executive director, Terry Harper, former pastor of Colonial Heights BC, Colonial Heights, VA, WV continues their solidly conservative stance.

WY: CBF is not active in Wyoming, as is typically the case in all “new work” areas. All three officers are conservative and were elected by acclamation.

Resolutions: Seven states passed resolutions opposing gambling (AL, AR, LA, NC, OK, TN, & WV). Six supported covenant marriage (KS, NE, OK, SC, U-I, & WV). Five opposed abortion (AL, GA, LA, MI, & OH). Four expressed support for the SBC Empowering Kingdom Growth emphasis (AK, GA, IN, & SC). Four encouraged prayer for our country, our leaders, and our military (AZ, KY, NV, & NW). Four opposed pornography (LA, MO, OK, & WV). Three opposed homosexuality while supporting witness to homosexuals (IL, LA, & SC). And three opposed terrorism (IL, LA, & MI). No other topic was the focus of resolutions in more than two states.

Overall View: A very good year. States to watch in the next twelve months are:

KY: A major question mark. Pray for a conservative turn.

DCBC: Not a major player in Southern Baptist the liberal-conservative conflict, but an interesting situation which may be decided after June when NAMB money stops flowing to the DCBC.

GA: What will the Georgia Baptist Convention do about Shorter College’s revolt?

KY: Quo vadis Kentucky?

MO: What will eventuate from the lawsuits against the 5 rebellious state entities?

MS: Will conservatives truly unite? What will the Constitution and Bylaws Committee recommend about the motion not to employ CBF folks?

NC: How will appointments go this year? What will the study committee report regarding giving Plan C, the CBF plan?

TN: A major question mark. What, if anything, will be done about the president not having appointive power? In the absence of such authority, how can any change occur?

TX-BGCT & VA-BGAV: How much will these two conventions decline during the year ahead? What will be the impact of the BGCT missions network in Texas and of Kingdom Advance in Virginia? Likely negative for both state conventions.