BGAV Direction
by T. C. Pinckney Vol. XIII, No. 5, May 2000
Frequently people ask about differences between the Baptist General Association of
Virginia (BGAV) and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia (SBCV). Of course, the
most basic and important distinction is in their respective understandings of Scripture,
for that determines virtually every other difference. However, today I will not address
the scriptural chasm other than to say that the SBCV asserts that the Bible is inerrant in
every topic (theological, historical, scientific, or any other category) upon which it
touches. This is not to assert that the Bible contains all truth, for of course
there are many areas it does not address at all (i.e., nuclear physics) or only in part
(the relationship and motions of celestial bodies). It is to say that -- even
though we may not fully understand what the Book says on a certain subject (i.e., free
will simultaneous with God's omnipotence) -- it is true. Truth is not determined by human
understanding, but by God's essence.
This article addresses one outgrowth of differing concepts of Scripture: increasing feminization of BGAV churches. But I do not want to give you my views. I would certainly be open to charges of slanting the facts did I do so -- and since everyone filters all topics through their own lenses, the critics might be correct.
Therefore, I offer you several paragraphs taken verbatim from the 23 March 2000
editorial by Religious Herald editor, Mike Clingenpeel. His editorial is titled
"The changing face of leadership". Bold print has been added; I will comment at
the end on these points.
A separate snapshot of Virginia Baptist lay leadership also would show many new faces, most of them women. A new study conducted by Rolen Bailey, a long-time Virginia Baptist pastor, director of missions and denominational worker, reveals that the number of Virginia churches which ordain women as deacons more than doubled since 1984.
In that year 150 churches had women deacons. Last year 363 churches reported having women deacons, with another 37 churches that had approved having women deacons but had none active at the time. These churches were in all but five district associations and included churches of all membership sizes and geographic locations. ... [I omit his discussion of elders. TCP]
The changing face of lay leadership in BGAV churches clearly demonstrates a trait that sets Virginia Baptists apart from the other Baptists in Virginia. Long ago Virginia Baptists established as a core value the principle of congregational autonomy. This principle invites every church to exercise its freedom to select leaders based upon the congregation's understanding of Scripture and the giftedness of its laity.
A majority of Virginia Baptist churches still do not ordain women as deacons, and their reasons vary. Many do not believe the Bible permits women to be ordained, instead teaching a hierarchy of male leadership in home and church. For others the rationale is based more on congregational tradition, which neither pastor nor laity see any need to test. In some instances, both due to Scripture and tradition, women do not want to seek election as deacons.
As the 21st century opens, however, the trend in Virginia Baptist churches is moving steadily toward inclusion of women in the diaconate. A convincing case can be argued that women served as deacons as early as the first century. Phoebe, for example was a diakonon (Romans 16:1). Women provide an important perspective to discussions about church strategies, give sensitive counsel and caring in the ministry functions of deacons and make good deacon team players. They long have provided the stability and faithful leadership enabling most of our churches to survive and thrive. Excluding women from deacon ministry may be an issue of unrecognized rights to some, but even more it seems a terrible squandering of human giftedness in the church.
Whichever position your church takes, you have a place in the BGAV. Virginia Baptists wisely have not allowed ordination of women as deacons to become a test of fellowship. Ardent proponents and opponents of this practice retain a place in the Virginia Baptist family portrait, and should.
The central organizing principle of Baptists is that every person stands free and accountable before God for her or his relationship to God. The logical extension of the principle requires this same freedom and accountability to every Baptist congregation.
These are leading to changes in the leadership portrait of our state Baptist family,
changes that can encourage and challenge us. [End of editorial.]
Comment: In 1999 400 BGAV churches are willing to ordain female deacons compared to 150 in 1984. Here is a clear distinction between the BGAV and SBCV springing from different understandings of the nature of the Bible. And as editor Clingenpeel writes, "the trend in Virginia Baptist churches is moving steadily toward inclusion of women in the diaconate." So, if your church has or intends to have women deacons, stay with the BGAV, for you would not be accepted in the SBCV or happy if accepted.
But there is a principle at work here of much broader application than merely the selection of deacons. Note the emphasized statements: (1) "Long ago Virginia Baptists established as a core value the principle of congregational autonomy." and (2) "The central organizing principle of Baptists is that every person stands free and accountable before God for her or his relationship to God. The logical extension of the principle requires this same freedom and accountability to every Baptist congregation."
Error is always more difficult to distinguish when mixed with truth, and in these statements truth and error are closely intertwined. It is certainly true that Baptists have always held that each individual is accountable before God and each congregation is autonomous.
Yet it is not true that individual accountability and/or congregational autonomy preclude associations of Baptist churches -- whether local, state, or national -- from establishing standards for membership. If such standards were precluded, it would create the untenable situation where the autonomy of one Baptist body prohibited the autonomy of another.
The reconciling principle is that of voluntarism. No church is coerced, nor can be coerced, to belong to a local association, state convention, or national convention. Each of the four levels of Baptist polity is free to set its own criteria for membership. In the local church this is typically a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance for sins. No church is duty bound to accept as members unrepentant sinners or even those who verbally repent but continue flagrantly sinful actions as the pattern of their lives. Neither is a local association, state convention, or national convention under any necessity to admit or retain as members any church which infringes the association's or convention's understanding of biblical standards.
If a church is refused admittance, or if previously a member, is dismissed from another Baptist body, such refusal or dismissal does not infringe the autonomy of the local church. That congregation remains a church and completely free to proclaim its preferred doctrine. It has been subjected to no hierarchical or legal pressure or restraint. It simply is not free to require the other Baptist body to accept beliefs and/or actions which the latter body believes unbiblical.
A second difficulty lies in the changing understanding of the nature of the diaconate. All the evidence indicates that in New Testament times deacons were simply ministers to the physical needs of the congregation. Indeed, the Greek word, "diakonos", from which our word, "deacon", comes means "servant". In such a context one would see no reason that women could not minister to other women and children, but in most SBC churches a "deacon" now means much more than a mere servant, for at some point deacons became primarily an administrative body exercising leadership in church affairs. This process began at least as early as the Charleston Confession of Faith of 1774 which said that the deacons' role is basically to relieve the pastor of secular concerns. In 1846 R. B. C. Howell published his book, The Deaconship, which amplified the premise that deacons should focus on administering the secular-temporal affairs of the church in order to free the pastor to care for spiritual matters. This book received wide readership and seems to have been influential in firmly establishing the administrative concept. Whatever the precise influences, today deacons usually have a role quite different from just being servants.
The final point to which I want to draw attention is posed by the two simple words "it seems". These words clearly connote human judgment. They cannot refer to God, because nothing "seems" to Him. God knows all things. He does not have to judge by appearances, by likelihood, or by how things seem.
Editor Clingenpeel here places human impressions or judgment ahead of biblical guidance, and he buys into the current postmodern approach that there is no absolute standard except the absolute standard of accepting anything. Note his sentence, "Whichever position your church takes, you have a place in the BGAV." In my judgment this is the most damaging charge that could possibly be lodged against any religious body.