Opinion: SBCV Objectives Have Changed

                                                                                                                                                Vol. X, No. 3, March 1997

by Rodney Houston, pastor Chatmoss BC, Martinsville, & Chairman, SBCV Public Relations Committee

[This piece which sets forth reasons for possibly changing the name of the SBCV. My editorial comments following will provide some countervailing thoughts. TCP]

           Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia are busy organizing to fulfill the great commission in Virginia and around the world. How to best streamline our new convention so that it is the most effective for Christ is of deep concern to our leadership. We want to start new churches that evangelize and disciple from an inerrant Bible. We want to support the Southern Baptist Convention and its agencies with a wiling heart.

           In order for us to be most effective, we must share the same beliefs and objectives. Our purpose has always been to win the lost to Christ, to develop believers, and to promote missions from a strong biblical stand. This purpose is clearly stated in our bylaws and hopefully will never change. While our purpose has not changed, one main objective to accomplish that purpose has changed. The SBCV has been a state convention since September 1996, but many well meaning conservative brothers continue to treat it like the fellowship that it used to be. When our fellowship formed four years ago in Lynchburg, one of our central concerns was to influence the Baptist General Association of Virginia toward a more biblically conservative stand on missions, evangelism, and important moral issues that affect our society today such as homosexuality and abortion. In addition, we desired greater appreciation for the conservative changes that have taken place in the SBC.

           When the majority of messengers at the BGAV voted to change the bylaws so that money sent to the SBC no longer counted for messengers to the state convention, conservatives saw that any hope to effect change in the BGAV through the voting process had been cut off. The rules had been changed in the middle of the game. This made inevitable the separation between conservatives and the BGAV that culminated in a 100% vote for a new state convention last September.

           Many conservative brethren have been fighting for change in the BGAV for so long, and the new state convention formed so suddenly, that they are finding it difficult to change gears; but change we must. The primary objectives of our new state convention no longer include changing the old convention. That is behind us. We move forward with our purpose in a new framework. We cannot afford to expend our precious resources on a battle that, regrettably, has been lost.

           The new objectives of our new state convention may, however, create a void of resources for many local churches that are just beginning to explore what problems exist at the BGAV and whether they want to make a switch. Many local churches are just now forming committees to investigate why a new state convention was formed. These local churches will need information and help. This help could be given from sources not tied with the SBCV leadership, or it could be facilitated by a subgroup of the SBCV. If such a subgroup is commissioned by the SBCV, we run the risk of once again being misunderstood as a state convention whose primary mission is to change the BGAV. Members of the SBCV Public Relations Committee struggle with this dilemma and are searching for God’s answer to the problem.

           A part of the answer to this problem might be a name change for the SBCV. Perhaps we could be the Southern Baptist Convention of Virginia? The SBCV Transition Committee is exploring the possibility of a name change and welcomes letters and calls from staff and laymen on the matter. A name change would clearly indicate a change of direction for the group. Some might object to omitting the word “Conservative.” We are not ashamed to be called conservatives, but do we really need to use the word to define our new state convention? The SBC has established itself firmly as a “conservative” convention. SBCV folks used the word while we were a fellowship to distinguish our differences with liberal doctrines found in various places at the BGAV. Now that we are a convention, fully supportive of the SBC, we should project biblical conservatism as mainstream for Southern Baptists. The grass roots of Southern Baptists and our rich heritage have always been conservative. We do not now need to distinguish ourselves with the label. We are the norm. Liberalism should be the one to distinguish itself because it is outside the norm for Southern Baptists.

           The future is bright for the SBCV. Unified behind the Jesus of an inerrant Bible, we can evangelize and disciple with full assurance that our heavenly Father will supply all our needs according to His riches in glory.

[Editorial Comment: Rodney Houston has set forth a number of valid points in the body of his article. My comments will only address his next to the last paragraph in which he discusses a name change for the SBCV. My comments will follow his sequence of thoughts.

           First, he suggests our present name, Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, might be replaced by “Southern Baptist Convention of Virginia.” I agree that, IF our convention’s name is changed, his suggestion is the best alternative. However, as you will see below, I do not believe a name change is necessary or desirable.

           Second, Rodney correctly writes, “A name change would clearly indicate a change in direction for the group. ... do we really need to use the word to define our new state convention?” My short response is, “Yes.” Those who have been personally involved with our efforts over the last decade or more are clear as to what we are about and who we are theologically, organizationally, and policy-wise. But the fact remains that the vast majority of Virginia Baptists have not been involved or informed, and to them “Conservative” carries considerable meaning. We need to sound a certain trumpet to all as they begin to educate themselves about Baptist issues and differences.

           Third, although we have separated from the BGAV organizationally and now focus directly upon missions and evangelism, rather than trying to do so by changing the BGAV (as Rodney indicates), we do not work in a denominational vacuum or in geographical isolation. We share Virginia with the BGAV and will continue to do so. The question of BGAV or SBCV will face Virginia churches for the indefinite future. Even churches who make a decision one way today, may change it two years, five years, or ten years down the road. Though the largest number of church decisions will probably occur over the last six months and the next year, decisions will continue, and we will need to continue to send very clear signals.

           Fourth, while names are far from the most important thing, nevertheless they are important. The word “conservative” in our name establishes our theological stance immediately and unequivocally. Those who are put off by it would not likely be satisfied with the SBCV and would tend to dilute our unity, our firm stand on the inerrancy of Scripture. We should not seek their affiliation, for it would be unfair to them and unfair to us.

           Fifth, history demonstrates that organizations which originate on principle soon begin to replace principle with bureaucratic imperatives and societal status. Very seldom is the downgrade process reversed as it has been over the last twenty years in the Southern Baptist Convention. The process of degradation is so common and so powerful that every honorable means to prevent it should be seized. There can be no guarantee of continued faithfulness as generation follows generation. The key to maintaining organizational faithfulness is the careful choice of leaders who understand that spiritual warfare is most dangerous when waged by those who wear your uniform, vocally espouse your credo but redefine the words, who apostatize by emphasizing one of God’s characteristics (i.e., love) and de-emphasize other of His attributes (i.e., purity, justice, wrath, etc.). Those, and their name is legion, who would create god in their own image or the image of the contemporary culture (II Timothy 3:1-7; 4:3) must be carefully guarded against. This is an often difficult job, for they are so frequently capable, intelligent, sincere, “nice” people. Yet all too often we find those admirable qualities packaged with a pride of intellect and status, and with such a desire for approbation that they are unwilling to stand (I Corinthians 2:5; Ephesians 6:10-18) against the condemnation of men. Of course, our name will not, cannot do the whole job. But the job is so hard that we need every help we can get by the grace of God, and a clear, clarion name is one not unimportant aid.

           Rodney is correct that liberals are the ones who should distinguish themselves, that is, who should make very clear where they stand. But the fact is that liberals almost never do so. Baptist liberals know that the great majority of Southern Baptists are truly conservative, Bible believing folks, and consequently we cannot expect liberals to forthrightly acknowledge their unbelief in biblical truth. To do so would destroy their movement, their positions, their perquisites. Because they will not (though they should) distinguish themselves, we must do so.

           Those who suggest changing the name do so from the best of intentions, I have no doubt. This is not a biblical issue, not a determinant of fellowship. And I do not propose to fall on my sword if the decision is not the one I favor. Should that happen, I would be disappointed, not disgusted; agitated, not alienated; miffed perhaps, but not malevolent.

           In conclusion, I suggest the name is important and should remain as it is. TCP]