1992 BGAV Convention Report
by T. C. Pinckney Vol. VI, No. 9, December 1993
Well, the 170th annual meeting of the BGAV is history. Time to step back and try to take a measured look at what happened. Like most such meetings from anyone's perspective (and of course The Banner speaks from the conservative view) there were positive and negative events. Let's first review the positive results and then the negative ones.
Promising Results:
1. On Tuesday a messenger moved that the body request the Denominational Relations Committee to initiate dialogue regarding establishing relations with the American Baptist Convention, the Progressive Baptist Convention, and other such bodies. Clearly this is another step in moving the BGAV away from the Southern Baptist Convention. After discussion the ballot vote recorded 1297 yes, 1257 no. Conservatives clearly opposed this motion. Even though our position lost, it was encouraging that the vote was so close. More than just conservatives were opposing the motion. A very few years ago it would have been overwhelmingly approved.
2. One of the most gratifying actions was that the meeting reversed the position taken a year ago on homosexuality when the 1992 convention refused to adopt the operative wording of a fairly good General Board statement on homosexuality. This year the General Board recommended adoption of the entire statement which reads,
"We believe that homosexual behavior is one of many sins listed by the Scriptures, and that ‘the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.' For the Bible says: ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God' (I Corinthians 6:910). ‘And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.' (Romans 1:27).
We affirm the Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful and unacceptable for Christians. Therefore, we do not endorse elevating those who practice it to positions of leadership."
This statement was overwhelmingly approved. The Banner congratulates the messengers for reversing last year's decision and taking a biblical stand. When you boil everything down, all Virginia conservatives want is for the BGAV to recognize and live by the full authority of God's Word.
3. The most critical issue for conservatives was to defeat a proposed amendment to Article III Section B of the state constitution which establishes the ground rules for the authorization of messengers from churches to the annual state meeting. The proposal was to insert three new words. In the portion of Article III reprinted below the three new words are shown in bold type.
"Each church contributing during the previous fiscal year, according to the treasurer's report, to the Cooperative Missions in Virginia Program funds and State Missions Offering funds of the General Association shall be entitled to..."
The proposed change would have excluded from the calculation of authorized messengers the money a church gives through the BGAV which flows on to the Southern Baptist Convention (or any other organization). The impact would be to pressure churches to contribute more to the state. Those conservative churches which did not give less to the SBC in order to give more to the state would be authorized fewer messengers.
The vote was: yes 1,959 or 60.5%; no 1,279, 39.5%. The amendment failed for lack of the required two-thirds majority. An al most identical amendment was offered in 1991 and failed by 1,744 (62.3%) to 1,056 (37.7%). Interestingly this year each side increased its vote by just over 200 votes from 1991. The conservative percentage increased by 1.8%.
One can only speculate about why such an amendment was proposed. Perhaps there was a mix of motives. BGAV budget receipts are so far below the goal that this year the new budget goal was reduced $800,000. So one purpose was probably to gain more funds for the BGAV. The second reason was likely to decrease messengers from conservative churches. There may also have been a desire to force conservatives to give up trying to effect positive change within the BGAV, to make staying in the BGAV so onerous that conservative churches would just leave, perhaps start their own separate convention. (It should be noted that this amendment was not presented as a recommendation of any BGAV body but rather by an individual.)
We did not win much at this meeting, but we did win on this essential issue.
Negatives:
1. Jim Acree, pastor of Bacon's Castle Church, moved to instruct the state Christian Life Commission to evaluate abortion from the biblical perspective and report to next year's meeting. The chair ruled that the motion was defeated upon a show of hands. That call by the moderator was questioned by a large number of messengers with calls of "BALLOT" "BALLOT." At the beginning of the next business session, the chair asked the body to vote whether to have a ballot vote. That was clearly declined by another show of hands vote. However, all of this occurred on Tuesday with the initial action being in the morning, the latter in mid-afternoon, and there were at least several hundred perhaps a thousand messengers present in the afternoon who were not present to hear the morning's debate. The Banner suggests that there is enough contention already in Virginia without creating ill feeling or suspicion over voting. Such incidents could be avoided if the chair would simply order ballot votes on sensitive issues, particularly if a hand vote is at all close.
2. Election of the president, 1VP, & 2VP: In a word, we lost. But there are some insights to be gained from examining the results. Conservative Vander Warner received 937 votes on the first presidential ballot, 60 more than our candidate last year and more than any conservative candidate in recent memory, but his votes were only 27.35% (although that too was an increase from last year's 23.3%).
Before the second ballot, Vander Warner graciously withdrew and asked his supporters to vote for Cecil Chambers on the second ballot. Chambers then got 41.91% (1,407 votes) on the second ballot, losing to Ron Crawford (who received 1950 votes). It is interesting that 41.91% of voting messengers were willing to oppose the establishment's picked man.
For 1VP Vander Warner was again nominated but lost to Mark Olson who received 72.7%. For 2VP Mary Wilson got 74.55%, conservative David Johnson 22.18%. Touchton received 3.27%.
3. Only two resolutions were reported out by the resolutions committee: one expressing appreciation to a number of people, and one encouraging prayer and fasting for spiritual renewal. The committee chose to take no action on six resolutions brought by messengers including one offered by Scott Terry of Oakton Baptist Church, Mount Vernon Association, on Agreement on Basic Doctrine and one Affirming a Pro-Life Stand. To demonstrate the problem, printed below is the text of the Resolution on Agreement on Basic Doctrine as it was submitted to the resolutions committee and which they chose not to act on:
"Whereas those outside of Southern Baptist life often see us in disagreement, we realize that Southern Baptists have been a body of baptized believers in agreement with the basics of the gospel, and
"Whereas we are to proclaim truth,
"Therefore, be it resolved that this body and the churches she represents go on record as being in total agreement on the following:
"the virgin birth of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ,
"the deity of Jeus Christ,
"salvation only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ,
"the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ,
"the personal, visible return of Jesus Christ to whom be all power, glory, and honor forever."
The refusal to deal with such resolutions is, perhaps, a microcosm of what is wrong in Virginia Baptist life. There is a great deal of giving warm fuzzies and lip service (possibly even heart service) to somewhat vague concepts such as prayer and fasting. (Now don't misunderstand. Prayer and fasting can be very important. I too voted for that resolution.) My point is that it doesn't cost anything to stand for prayer and fasting. But when it comes down to cutting edge, impacting-on-everyday-life-in-such-a-way-that-people-can-see matters (like basic doctrine and abortion) the majority of messengers repeatedly refuse to take an open, biblical stand.
There may be a rule of life here, something like: "If you affirm everybody, you stand for nothing." Or: "If you fear to take a stand, you'll stand for anything."