Statement to the Administrative Sub-committee of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention
From Robert L. Stephenson, Messenger, First Baptist Church of Norman, OK
September 17, 2002
On June 11, 2002 I made a motion during a business session at the Southern Baptist Convention as it met at St. Louis. My motion was:
I move that the messengers of this convention in session at St. Louis, MO on June 11-12, 2002 vote to instruct the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to limit the number of state convention that are recognized, and from which the Southern Baptist Convention will receive funds, to one convention per state and thereby resolve the inconsistent policy which receives funds from two competing state conventions in Texas and Virginia while refusing funds from a new Baptist convention in Missouri.
I made this motion because the current policy by which the Executive Committee recognizes and receives funds from state conventions appears to set a double standard. I believe that if the Executive Committee would approve my motion, it would put an end to the double standard and would serve to clarify the direction in which the Southern Baptist Convention is headed.
Dr. Chapman has indicated that the Executive Committee could not receive funds from the new Missouri convention because it would not make the SBC the “exclusive beneficiary” of Cooperative Program funds.[1] State conventions, however, have never been obligated to make the SBC the “exclusive beneficiary” of their funds. State conventions distribute Cooperative Program funds as the messengers in each state see fit. Existing state conventions channel funds to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, to Associated Baptist Press, to the Baptist World Alliance and to a variety of other national and international causes.
From this layman’s perspective, it appears that the real criterion by which the Executive Committee determines whether or not state conventions are in “friendly cooperation” is acceptance of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. If adherence to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the criterion by which state conventions will be considered in proper relation to the SBC, then say so and consistently enforce that policy.
Some leaders of the SBC have publicly suggested that missionaries who serve the SBC lack “character” or “integrity” when they are willing to receive funds from a convention whose confession of faith they cannot affirm in good conscience.[2] Such statements would seem to be hypocritical and self-serving in light of the Executive Committee’s willingness to receive funds from state conventions that refuse to affirm that same confession of faith (i.e. Texas and Virginia).
I do not share the Executive Committee’s enthusiasm for the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I do respect the consistent manner in which the members of this committee have previously held their convictions. I encourage you to be true to your convictions and demonstrate it by facing whatever repercussions ensue from enforcing a clear and consistent policy.
[1] Dr. Chapman wrote, “We have not nor do we desire to enter into new relationships that do not see the SBC as the exclusive beneficiary of national Cooperative Program gifts from the churches.” January 25, 2002 Letter by SBC Executive Committee President & CEO Morrish H. Chapman to Dr. James L. Hill. www.baptist2baptist.net/Papers/MO-DrHill.html
[2] Ron Rogers, chairman of the SBC’s Committee on Order of Business, arguing in favor of referring to the IMB and NAMB a motion related to missionaries not signing the 2000 BF&M, said from the platform during a business session that, “We are looking at the character of men and women. It is an issue that each entity – NAMB and IMB – is responsible to take care of.” Baptist Press June 12, 2002 “Motions address controversy over missionaries & BFM” www.bpnews.net/ID=13596 Jack Graham, president of the SBC, responded to a question about missionaries not signing the 2000 BF&M at a news conference at the St. Louis SBC meeting and said, “All who serve us will share our faith. It’s a matter of integrity.” Baptist Standard June 17, 2002 “Graham discusses the future of SBC & Texas Baptists” www.baptiststandard.com/2002/6_17/graham.html.