Why There Should Be a New State Convention                 

by Terry Collier                                                                                            Vol. VIII, No. 7, August 1995

     Passed at the 1994 annual session of the Baptist General Association of Virginia (BGAV) was a constitutional amendment which limits the basis for authorizing messengers to the annual state convention solely to money given to Virginia causes. Always in past years and decades all donations to both Virginia AND Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) causes had counted toward messengers to the state convention and SBC convention.

     The reason given for the amendment in pre-meeting statements by moderates, in the presentation by the General Board, and at floor microphones was the existence of a conservative state organization (the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, SBCV) which channels funds to the SBC Cooperative Program and has its own Director and missions programs. Of course this was not the real rationale. The Board had tried this same approach in the 1991 annual meeting in Salem, but failed. The SBCV did not even exist in 1991. But those who thought it their duty to end participation of conservatives in the BGAV used the SBCV as an effective argument.

Recent Budget History

     As conservatives regained influence on SBC boards, agencies, and seminaries, moderates in charge of structuring the BGAV budget began year by year to reduce the percentage of Cooperative Program donations from churches passed on to the SBC. In addition, other reductions were made in the percentages of funds, going directly to SBC agencies. The more conservative the trustee board of a seminary or mission board became, the less money the BGAV was willing to send to that agency.

     Until 1990, Virginia's budget was relatively simple, with 62% of undesignated funds staying in the state and 38% forwarded to the SBC Cooperative Program. Incremental changes reducing support of the SBC began in 1990 when the Annuity & Protection Plan was made a separate, preferred section (it had always been part of the state portion) and the SBC percentage was cut from 38% to 36.5%. This cut $250,000 from Cooperative Program dollars going to Nashville.

     A major change occurred in 1991. The official state plan for dollars going out of state, which had always been named the SBC Mission Budget, was changed to the "World Missions Budget," Whereas 34% of gifts went to this section, only half (17%) went to the SBC Cooperative Program. The other half was designated by the state to go to eight different causes, including: the FMB, the HMB, the Annuity Board, the liberal Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Baptist World Alliance, and Associated Baptist Press (the liberal competitor with the SBC Baptist Press).

     The official state plan was called WM-2. There was also a WM-1 track which was almost identical with that in use for over 20 years. BUT every church was automatically moved to the liberal WM-2 track. It could only remain in WM-1 if it took a church vote and officially informed the state treasurer of its decision to remain in WM-1.

     In 1992, the percentages remained the same, but the very liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State was moved front the state budget to World Missions and the liberal Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond was added,

     In response to these changes in the BGAV budget, conservative churches began to individually devise budget plans which were inversely proportional to the adopted state budget percentages. Some years previously upon the motion of then Director of Missions, Mt. Vernon Association, Dr. Bill Cumbie, the state had adopted a provision permitting each church to set up its own giving plan.

     The 1993 budget set the World Missions Causes at 35% with giving along one of three options: WM-1 and WM-2 as described above, or a third track, WM-3, in which ALL the money flowing out of state goes to the liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. (The self-designed option remains available.) Also in 1993 several more liberal line items were added to WM-2 and money going directly to the SBC Foreign and Home Mission Boards was slashed $633,262.

     There was no significant change in the 1994 BGAV budget. But the 1995 budget (which is underway now) marks another large step away from the SBC. In the official WM-2 track SBC agencies were cut from the 81.5% (of the now 36% going out of state) to 72.08% and increases given to other items including the Richmond Seminary, the Baptist Center for Ethics, the Baptist Joint Committee, and Associated Baptist Press.

Impact of the Constitutional Amendment

     Of course the amendment applies to all Virginia churches but in fact only conservative churches giving more to the SBC than is provided in the official state plan and therefore less than 64% to the BGAV will have their authorized messengers cut. The extent of the decrease will vary depending upon what percent the church allows the BGAV to keep. But a church which adopted the conservative recommended 17% to the BGAV and 83% to the SBC and previously qualified for the maximum 15 messengers would be reduced to 4 or 5.

     In summary of the amendment’s impact, it appears that messenger representation from the two or three hundred most active, knowledgeable, and committed conservative churches has been cut by about half. That would appear to make it impossible for conservatives ever to win a voting majority at a BGAV convention. Consequently, conservatives no longer can look forward to effecting change in Virginia through the BGAV.

What Is a Cooperating Virginia Baptist

          If you are a member of a church which follows the New Testament teaching of salvation by grace and believers' baptism by immersion and which gives any amount of money, even $ 1, to the Cooperative Program through the BGAV, you are a Virginia Baptist by the BGAV by-laws.

     If you've attended a state convention in recent years or read The Religious Herald, you know the BGAV has taken stands on many issues including such concerns as abortion, homosexuality, church/state actions, and doctrinal stances on inerrancy and women in ministry which can only be characterized as liberal. The public perception, and I think even the view of a large number of our church members, is that since we are "Virginia Baptists" we all must subscribe to these views.

     In fact, I feel that the typical Virginia Baptist is conservative, and a majority of Virginia pastors are probably conservative. Many are from small or medium-sized churches and do not attend state meetings. The reason they do not attend is not indifference. Many are bi-vocational, and a large number are located in the western part of the state and have difficulty getting to meetings in Richmond or Virginia Beach.

     Though the Religious Herald uses the term moderate-conservative and fundamental-conservative to describe the camps, public newspapers in the state, especially those with religion editors, refer to conservatives as ultraconservatives or fundamentalists, giving the notion that we are a small hinge group on the extreme right. The result of all of this is that we are linked to the BGAV which projects the liberal Virginia Baptist image. No matter that we speak or write in support of the truth. No matter that your church votes unanimously to negatively designate all offensive budget items. You are still a "Virginia Baptist" and linked to the BGAV agenda.

Does It Matter?

     So what, if the perception exists that because we are BGAV-affiliated we share its views? In the great scheme of things, does it matter? In the work of the kingdom, should we take the time to fight this fight? Friends, we have no choice! We are called to be salt and light. What if those credited for the conservative resurgence at the national level had continued with the status quo? Your church would be identified with the liberal Southern Baptist Convention. Our influence in the BGAV is zero. Our only choice at this point is to declare ourselves a new state convention, and proclaim that at least this group of Virginia Baptists believe that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of God, that sin is still sin, and that Christ is still the only way to peace in this life and eternity in heaven.

     To quote a recent Cal Thomas citation of Abraham Lincoln from his last public address on April 11, 1865, "Important principles may and must be inflexible." There are no more important principles than these that engage us here. If God's Word is not absolutely dependable and authoritative, we are wasting our time.

[Terry Collier is a mining engineer and member of Ridgeview Baptist Church, Wise, VA.]