|
Statement to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention Regarding the recommendation on SBC Referral: Motion to recognize and accept gifts from only one convention in each state. From Dr. Bruce Prescott, messenger, First Baptist Church of Norman, OK September 17, 2002 The rationale and explanations given in the administrative committee meeting for adopting this recommendation appear contradictory and may involve the Executive Committee in a violation of the Convention’s cooperative agreement with the state conventions. At the Administrative Committee meeting this morning the rationale given for not recognizing and accepting gifts from only one convention in each state is that the Executive Committee should “do what is in the best interests of the Convention.” This recommendation appears to contradict what Dr. Chapman said in his January 25, 2002 letter to Jim Hill. There Dr. Chapman wrote, “A single state Baptist convention per area is the ideal and best serves the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention.” It also appears contradictory to say in Missouri that one state convention per state is in the best interests of the Convention and then, in Texas and Virginia, to deny that recognizing and accepting gifts from only one convention in each state is in the best interests of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Chapman’s explanation for this discrepancy employed relational metaphors. He compared the overtures of the new Missouri convention to going on a date with someone who has criticized you. Why get involved with someone new when you’ve already got a partner who fully supports you? Dr. Chapman said the relationships with Texas and Virginia were different. In Texas and Virginia the Convention has longstanding relationships, but those relationships are troubled. There, the Executive Committee recognized new state conventions that would fully support the Convention. Extending Dr. Chapman’s relational metaphors, what kind of logic would suggest that you could mend a troubled, but longstanding marriage by entering into a relationship with someone new? Or, to use a metaphor more appropriate to the situation, what kind of logic would suggest that you could repair a troubled, but longstanding partnership by partnering with a competitor? Such advice appears to be a direct violation of point 6. of the cooperative agreement with state conventions (Item 20, Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention May 16, 1928, 1928 SBC Annual, pp. 32-33) which reads:
If the Convention’s partnerships with Texas and Virginia are troubled, then the Executive Committee should be receiving instructions to work to repair them. If the committee has no intention of striving to repair these partnerships, then the Executive Committee should clarify that decision by ending those partnerships so that you can fulfill your charge from the Convention to completely and heartily cooperate with your partnering state conventions. I urge you to overrule the Administrative Committee and support the motion to recognize and accept gifts from a single convention in each state. |
|
Online since April 7, 1999
E- mail questions or comments about this web site to bprescott@mainstreambaptists.orgCopyright © 1999-2003 MAINSTREAM OKLAHOMA BAPTISTS P.O. Box 6371 Norman, OK 73070-6371 (405) 329-2266.
|