State Convention Round-Up
Vol. I, No. 6, December 1988
Moderates continued in firm control of the BGAV convention again this year. However, Neal Jones is to he commended for his objective, fair chairmanship. The most significant business was the approval with only slight modifications of the Report of the President's Task Force on the Denominational Crisis. While too long to reproduce here in full, its five "Arenas of Stress" will be summarized.
I. Religious Liberty and the Baptist Joint Committee. This section quite properly espouses religious liberty but is underlain with an incorrect assumption, that religious liberty requires government without regard to God, that somehow it is ungodly for godly men to publicly support other godly men because they are godly. Such an assumption or action principle is, of course, not an expression of religious liberty but rather of antireligious censorship and even tyranny. This section concludes with five recommendations four of which express support for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJC) including authority for the BGAV Budget Committee "to recommend appropriate action to the Virginia Baptist General Board to assure reasonable financial support of the (BJC) by Virginia Baptists" should SBC funding for the BJC be cut. Put plainly, Virginia Baptists have voted to fund the BJC if the SBC cuts its support. This is the same BJC which is directed by James Dunn, formerly on the board of the ultra-liberal People for the American Way. The same James Dunn who was instrumental in helping defeat Southern Baptist support for the vital Grove City bill in Congress this past term. The same James Dunn who did nothing last year to support the Armstrong Amendment which would have given legal approval that schools do not have to support groups (such as homosexuals) that violate their religious convictions.
II. Mission Support and the Cooperative Program (CP). Expresses concern that some churches give only a small portion of their undesignated gifts through the CP. But the section ends by saying, "However, we also believe the terms of the partnership [with the SBC] should be renegotiated to allow more direct communication, accountability, and flexibility regarding matters of conscience. If negotiations fail, the BGAV will be forced to consider making its own allocations through the SBC Executive Committee to SBC causes."
Ill. Theological Education. Proclaims that Virginia Baptists believe sound theological education should be characterized by "serious academic scholarship, openness of inquiry that encourages independent investigation of the truth, balance in theological approach, responsible, freedom within the bounds of historic Baptist confessions of faith." Clearly these phrases, in spite of the last, qualifying clause, are code words describing a theological education which dismisses the Bible's testimony to itself and replaces it with men's judgment thus making man's intellect the primary authority rather than God's Word. They also assume that someone who believes the Bible is infallibly true cannot be a serious scholar or engage in open inquiry. One is reminded of the verse, "Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools." The serious implications of this section should be carefully and prayerfully considered by every Virginia Baptist who accepts the Bible as God's Word without error.
IV. Ex Officio Members of the General Board. Amended the BGAV constitution to remove the right to vote or hold General Board offices from the three Virginia members of the SBC Executive Committee. Although this action apparently sprang from an effort to spite one conservative Executive Committee member, ironically it moves Virginia in a less connectional, more baptistic, and so more conservative direction.
V. SBC Representation. Claims Virginians elected to SBC boards are "sometimes not representative of a majority of Virginia Baptists." The Report recommended the convention elect "two persons for ... suggestion to the SBC president for consideration as Virginia member to the SBC Committee on Committees." The convention elected outgoing state president Neal Jones and Richmond layman J. Harwood Cochrane. Of course if the SBC adopted such a policy across the board, SBC autonomy would be destroyed because the SBC would become the creation of the state conventions. One can only wonder whether the BGAV leadership has not proposed something they know the SBC president, Dr. Jerry Vines, cannot accept in order to criticize him and purposely create even greater dissension.
VI. A New Style of Life for Southern Baptists. This very brief section had two recommendations: That the new BGAV president, Mrs. Woodward, appoint a nine-member, two-year committee to study and report on "the relationship of the BGAV with the Southern Baptist Convention." In view of Section V's call that the SBC "Return to some method of nomination which assures authentic representation of the various constituencies of the SBC" it will be interesting to see whether President Woodward appoints an appropriate number of Virginia conservatives to this committee. Secondly, that the BGAV send a "Memorial" to the SBC. The last two paragraphs of the Memorial are worth quoting.
"We believe the Cooperative program was God's provision in an earlier dilemma. It has since its adoption been the great common ground from which Southern Baptist launched their mission endeavors. How tragic it would be to see our task of reaching and changing our world for Christ disrupted by uncooperative and unresponsive attitudes. We believe that both the percent of receipts for SBC causes and the priorities of the total Cooperative Program should be scrutinized carefully.
"We urge that you take this overture seriously and as a beginning point for serious discussion. Your timely response will be eagerly and prayerfully awaited, and will affect the further course of our relationship with the SBC."
Loyal Southern Baptist will wait with keen interest to find out what BGAV leaders mean in these enigmatic and ominous two paragraphs.