BGAV Meeting: A Distressful Display

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                   Vol. VIII, No. 10, Nov./Dec. 1995

[The following article is based upon the Baptist Press release and verbal reports of several who were present. Pastor D. B. Martin, Natural Bridge Baptist Church, contributed much of the factual information. The judgments are my own. TCP]

The Baptist General Association of Virginia annual meeting took place 9-10 November in Virginia Beach where some 2,096 messengers gathered. (It is interesting to compare the registration for the last several years: 1988 2,659; ‘89 2,767; ‘90 4,646; ‘91 3,419; ‘92 4,253; ‘93 4,005; ‘94 3,272; and now 2,096.) In one sense it was a quiet meeting. Because of the amendment passed in November 1994, which cut the representation of the most active conservative churches by approximately two-thirds, most conservatives decided not to return to any more BGAV meetings. Thus, it had been previously announced that no conservatives would be nominated for office, and relatively few conservatives were present.

Several matters which were passed by this year's convention demonstrate once again the leftward course set by the BGAV leadership. But first some background.

The 1991, 1992, and 1993 budgets were $16,300,000, but receipts fell far short due to conservative dissatisfaction. In 1994 the budget was cut to $15,500,000 and in 1995 to $15,000,000. The 1996 budget approved in Virginia Beach is $15,400,000. The form of next year's budget remains the same with three "World Mission" (note they are not "SBC Mission" Causes as they always had been up to and including the 1990 BGAV budget [see the 1989 Virginia Baptist annual, p. 54]).

The WM-1 track is the closest to the historical SBC Cooperative Program and sends 36% to the SBC. The WM-3 track is just the opposite, for it sends the entire 36% to the "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship" and not one penny to the SBC. The WM-2 track sends 18% to the SBC budget and the other half to various designated purposes. Two of these designations are the Foreign Mission Board and the Home Mission Board, but their amounts have gradually decreased as more liberal line items have been added and their amounts have been increased.

It is noteworthy that if your church has not voted to contribute to a particular track, it was AUTOMATICALLY placed in WM-2 several years ago. It is also noteworthy that if you call the state treasurer's office and ask what plan your church is on, you will be told that they only release that information to the church's pastor ... which says reams about what official BGAV policy actually is regarding congregational polity versus pastoral authority.

In fairness, it is important to note that one of the good features of BGAV budget policy is that each Virginia church has the option of designing its own unique budget plan. Indeed, for several years many of the more active conservative churches in the state had voted to send 17% to the BGAV budget and 83% to the SBC. (Those percentages were the reverse of an earlier version of WM-2.) ... Well, with that background filled in, we turn back to this year's BGAV meeting.

Two efforts to amend the budget failed. One would have eliminated funding to any institution which permits the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages on campus. This was apparently aimed at the University of Richmond, which recently opened a pub on campus. UR is allocated $290,000 in the 1996 budget.

A second amendment would have deleted about $2,100 allocated to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an ultra-liberal anti-Christian organization masquerading under the guise of protecting religious liberty. This amendment was also voted down.

The BGAV treasurer's reports document continuing declines in support for SBC seminaries. In 1987-88 the BGAV sent $1,164,308, to all six SBC seminaries. In the 1993-94 fiscal year, the BGAV sent them only $750,640; and in the `94'95 year only $734,902.

Later in the meeting messengers adopted an amendment reaffirming the BGAV's "long-standing opposition to the abuse of alcohol" and its "sale and abuse on the campuses and schools and colleges affiliated with the BGAV." Note the amendment decries "abuse" but says nothing about "use." A messenger at a microphone expressed the desire that the word be changed to "use" and asked the committee about that possibility. The commit tee's response was that "abuse" expressed the committee's view and they were not willing to accept the change. Unfortunately no amendment was formally offered and the resolution passed stating "abuse" not "use." By implication and through the budget BGAV messengers voted in favor of the USE of alcohol though not its abuse!

Clint Hopkins, pastor of Churchland Baptist Church, Chesapeake was elected president. Hopkins is a leading liberal pastor and trustee of the seminary in rebellion in Richmond. At the founding meeting of the CBF in Atlanta 23-25 August 1990, he was a workshop leader.

In debate on the proposed strategic plan, a messenger noted that the plan instructs the general board to cooperate with the WMU and the state's 43 local associations. He asked, "Since we have had a historic relationship with the SBC, why not add it to the report?" Messengers voted down including the SBC!

Messengers passed a resolution pledging "continued support" of the Woman's Missionary Union. Apparently this was done in view of the recent brouhaha resulting from the WMU initiative to help the CBF by printing mission materials for that schismatic group.

New mission partnerships were announced with Panama, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Interestingly, the partnership with the Czechs (and Slovak's ??) was concluded through the auspices of the CBF, not through the SBC Foreign Mission Board.

Another resolution condemning the abominable practice of partial birth abortions was not reported out by the resolutions committee. Messengers later voted down a motion to bring the resolution to the floor!

In summary, in the unlikely event that any Virginia Baptist did not previously understand the rapid liberal and unbaptistic course of the BGAV, this convention should make it inescapably clear. (1) As president they elected a long-term CBF supporter and activist who is a trustee of the seminary in Richmond. (2) Through both a resolution and the budget they demonstrate their support of the use (though not abuse) of alcohol. (3) They continue to provide an official channel to facilitate churches diverting money from the SBC and to the CBF. (4) They continue to help fund Americans United. (5) They refused to include the SBC in the state strategic plan. (6) They affirmed the WMU in its anti-SBC initiative. (7) They have concluded a missions partnership through the CBF in preference to the FMB. (8) And they refused both in committee and on the floor to even consider a vote on a resolution condemning inhuman partial birth abortions!

In the 19 October issue of Baptists Today Bill Montgomery, who offered the motion at the July CBF general assembly that the CBF declare itself to be a convention separate from the SBC, authored an opinion piece with his rationale for that action. I will quote the better part of three paragraphs. I have added the bold print for emphasis.

"I am thrilled about our growth and our multiple ministries. I believe this will continue. But I think it would be far better for us to drop the guise of being a Fellowship and to declare ourselves to be what, for all practical purposes, we already are, a convention. ...

"Let's face it: the SBC which many of us spent most of our lives working in does not exist any more. The SBCers and CBFers are two different and distinct sets of cats, and neither of these groups of leopards is going to change its spots.

"To imagine or hope that at some time in the future these two groups are going to "bury the hatchet" and again work together in a unified convention is, I believe, most unrealistic."

So there you have it: two different sets of cats. While I obviously disagree with where Montgomery has chosen to stand, I commend his honesty and concur with his judgment. Surely to any even halfway objective observer the decisions taken at the 1995 BGAV meeting confirm Montgomery's view.

This is not a time for anger or rancor. It is a time for prayer, careful observation, deep thought, and a willingness to stand upon God's perfect Word. While personal decisions may well be painful, in the long run it will be better for both moderates and conservatives to make a clear and conscious decision and follow it through. Seek God's will and do it without being swayed by the cost.