SBCV a State Convention? Not Yet!

by Dr. D.B. Martin                                                                            Vol. VIII, No. 8, September 1995

[D.B. Martin is pastor of Natural Bridge Baptist Church.]

Should SBCV take the necessary steps to become a state convention now or continue as a fellowship? Neither the special committee nor the Executive Committee has made a recommendation to do so at this writing and I understand the Executive Committee will discuss it further at their next meeting and it will be on the agenda for the SBCV Annual Meeting November 7^th. I am pro-SBCV and intend to continue to participate whether it becomes a state convention or continues as a fellowship. I believe it provides an important alternative for fellowship, Bible believing inspirational/training meetings and missions giving. However, I do not believe SBCV is ready to become a state convention yet. Here's why..

It does not seem to me that SBCV, as presently constituted, could even be called a state convention. My understanding is that only churches may form and affiliate with a state convention. Initially there was no suggestion that churches elect messengers to form SBCV. The SBCV Constitution adopted in 1993 stated that "Any cooperating Southern Baptist Churches desiring membership in this body shall petition the Executive Committee at least three months prior to this body's annual meeting." (Art. V, 1, a). Part b. says, "The Executive Committee will present all applicant churches to the next annual meeting with an affirmative or negative recommendation." Part c. adds "All churches receiving at least 3/4 affirmative majority at the annual meeting shall be welcomed to membership." (Section 2 has very similar guidelines for individuals affiliating with SBCV which I believe should be deleted.)

Have any churches elected messengers to the SBCV? It would seem good to have messenger cards available. Have any churches petitioned for membership in SBCV? It might help to send a letter out with instructions on how to do it and perhaps a suggested petition form. Have any churches been received? If the Executive Committee were to present a recommendation of new member churches, who would be eligible to vote to receive them? There is a list of those who have given to SBCV. If they gave $1.00 would that automatically make that church or individual an SBCV member? There was registration of those attending the initial organizational meeting in Lynchburg in February of 1993, but no mention was made of messengers from local churches. Has a registration been taken at any other SBCV meeting since? How can we call ourselves a state convention when we don't know who our constituency is? SBCV should have documentation for it's identity before it calls itself a state convention.

I have served as pastor of churches in six state conventions in the SBC and served on the Constitution Committee when the PA/South Jersey Baptist Convention was formed. None of these state conventions, nor any others I am aware of, provide for individuals to affiliate with a state convention. In order to vote in a state convention, one must be an elected messenger of a church which has voted to be affiliated with and gives to the cooperative program budget of that state convention. While I am in sympathy with many individuals who want to participate in SBCV whose church does not, I believe we should change our constitution to recognize only duly elected messengers from affiliated churches before becoming a state convention. Jesus established the local church. All other denominational entities are extensions of the local church. To allow individual affiliation is a serious departure from Baptist polity relating to the autonomy of the local church. Individual participation in the early stages of SBCV was understandable but we need to revise this before we become a state convention. Of course, non-messenger individuals would be welcome to attend all SBCV meetings but they could not vote. Perhaps if we continued as a fellowship and worked through the constitutional steps to identify who our participating churches are, it would give the individuals time to either lead their churches to petition for SBCV membership or relate to another church which would.

Could declaring SBCV a state convention affect the SBC trustees situation? SBC By-law 32 clearly states, a new state convention of 15,000 members is entitled to only one representative each on the Executive Committee, Committee on Committees, and the Committee on Nominations. As the membership increases, a new state convention is entitled to more representatives on other SBC Boards. If we, in fact, became a new state convention, we would fall under By-law 32 whether we applied or not. In the event of litigation, a federal court could decide that a "new" state convention is only entitled to as many trustees as it has documented membership for. If SBCV does not declare itself a state convention or apply for recognition and most SBCV churches are dually aligned, the SBC Committee on Nominations could continue to recommend trustees from Southern Baptist Churches in Virginia without designating them BGAV or SBCV. If there were two state conventions SBC By-law 32 could land us in federal court not withstanding an opinion by SBC legal counsel. There are many precedents demonstrating that courts have jurisdiction. The most famous is the "North Rocky Mount Case."

On August 9,1953 the North Rocky Mount Missionary Baptist Church of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, voted 241 to 144 to withdraw from the State Convention of North Carolina and the Southern Baptist Convention. The minority took it to court. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of North Carolina and involved witnesses from all levels of the State and from the Southern Baptist Convention. The minority won and the majority had to move out of the building. (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOUTHERN BAPTISTS, Broadman Press, 1958. p. 1021). Litigation would be a bad testimony, could adversely affect SBC trustees, and would be costly as well. I believe we could avoid some of these problems by not declaring SBCV a State Convention or applying for recognition at this time.

There are many benefits which churches can receive through BGAV which SBCV could not provide for many years. For example, leadership training for Sunday School, Discipleship Training, VBS, music, etc. The retirement program through the Annuity Program would at least be in question for some time for SBCV as a state convention. Just having a state office, a full time Executive Director and secretary would not meet all these needs for local churches.

The Foreign Mission Board, Home Mission Board, Sunday School Board, and others have covenant agreements with BGAV which could hinder them working with SBCV. Presidents of these boards have been reluctant to agree, even hypothetically, to come to our meetings or provide direct help to SBCV except with literature. Dual alignment with both SBCV and BGAV seems to be the most viable option we have at present..

If a large number of conservatives were to totally leave BGAV, could the SBC risk losing BGAV to CBF, the national alternative to the SBC? What about the "middle conservative" Virginia Baptist churches who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and are winning the lost, but have not been involved in the controversy? Many of these middle conservatives have perceived SBCV conservatives as too adversarial. Certainly we must "...contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) But Paul reminds us, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God, peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,..." (2 Tim. 2:24-25) If we are less visible and vocal, perhaps the "middle conservatives" will speak up and resist further movement toward liberal theology and away from SBC. If so, we need to be qualified to help them. It is still possible that a Bible believing coalition of Virginia Baptists could move BGAV back toward the authority of the Bible and strong support for the SBC World Missions Program without "taking over." Southern Baptist Seminaries are producing more conservative pastors. For the first time in years, momentum is on the side of the conservatives.

There are multitudes of unreached people in Virginia. We need to mobilize all the resources and personnel in both BGAV and SBCV toward getting the gospel to every person and planting churches in every community.

In conclusion, I recommend that SBCV continue as a fellowship and neither apply for or declare ourselves as a new state convention. I would encourage all our churches to be dually aligned with both the SBCV and BGAV. SBCV is likely to adopt a clear cooperative program budget and call a full time Executive Director in the November annual meeting. This should provide more ministries and more flexibility in our mission giving. Every church could choose the ministries from SBCV and BGAV which most benefit the local church ministry and outreach. We would continue to have a very effective caucus for education and still be able to vote in crucial BGAV decisions. As SBCV grows and provides more and more services to the local churches, the day may come, depending on the direction taken by BGAV, when SBCV may become a fully operational state convention. Meanwhile, let's continue to emphasize winning souls, building great churches, and supporting SBC world missions!