Last week at its annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

voted by a large majority to withdraw from the Baptist World Alliance

which the SBC helped start in 1905. Messengers to the SBC (usually called

delegates at other sorts of meetings) approved the statement moved by

the Executive Committee.

The committee's premise was thusly stated: "The

Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention recommends the

Southern Baptist Convention withdraw its membership from Baptist World

Alliance, effective October 1, 2004, and encourage the Executive Committee

and the Empowering Kingdom Growth (EKG) Task Force to continue studying

how the Southern Baptist Convention may establish an even closer bond

of fellowship with conservative Christians around the world for the purpose

of growing in the grace of our loving Lord, preaching the Gospel of our

Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth, and bringing glory to His

name through the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth..."

One would ask why? Why would the SBC pull out of an organization it

first formulated and in which it played a vital role?

What is the Baptist World Alliance? The Baptist World Alliance now has

192 Baptist unions and conventions in more than 200 countries with a

church membership of more than 42 million baptized believers. This represents

a community of approximately 100 million Baptists in the fellowship of

the Baptist World Alliance. The BWA leads in world evangelism, responds

to people in need and defends human rights. Does that seem like the kind

of organization Baptists would want to kick out of its budget?

I fear there were two main reasons the SBC gave the boot to the BWA.

The first has to do with the break off Baptist body called the Baptist

Cooperative Fellowship.

About 30 years ago a small group within the SBC decided to stage a take

over from historical Baptists who were running the SBC. This small group

of fundamentals felt they were consistently left out of decision making.

So, a couple smart dudes within the small group learned that whoever

controlled the power to appoint the committee on committees would be

in the position to virtually change the SBC. So, for years and years,

they organized and bused in thousands of messengers who would vote for

the fundamentalist candidate for president. Eventually and over a period

of some ten years, the fundamentalist presidents had totally replaced

all trustees and the SBC found itself no longer in the hands of historical

(and yes, moderate) Baptists.

Because certain Baptists and Baptist churches did not identify with

the new fundamental leadership, there emerged a collection who called

themselves the Baptist Cooperative Fellowship (BCF). They now do all

the things a denomination does: send out missionaries, have a central

office, elect leaders, and take stands on all sorts of issues.

Well, the BCF finally decided that they wanted to join the BWA. But

the SBC bigwigs threatened the BWA that if they allowed the BCW to

join, the SBC would take their shiny marbles and go home. The BWA accepted

the BCF and now the SBC has taken its marbles and gone home � with

a hunk of the money (it would be like the United States pulling out

of

the United Nations).

But you may suggest that it sounds like politics. It is. It's the

politics of women. The BCF affirms the equality of women in ministry

while the SBC demands that women never enter the pulpit or serve the

Lord's Supper. Of course, there are all sorts of innuendos. One

ridiculously suggests that the SBC believes the BWA would affirm homosexual

pastors. The BWA has made it explicitly clear its conservative views

in this matter.

Therefore, the rule is that if you do not believe just like the big

shots in the SBC believe, you don't belong. No longer is the

Southern Baptist Convention a large umbrella that enables evangelicals

to come

together for the purpose of education and world missions. We now

come to together to think and believe just alike.

I think the SBC has a big problem. What are they going to do with

the United States of America? Will they withdraw from the United States

because

its policies and programs don't match the theological convictions

of the Executive Committee of the SBC? Clearly the United States supports

women's rights and even abortion. Will the SBC totally absolve

all relations with the United States by paying taxes and refusing any

governmental

benefit by virtue of being a religious body? By accepting, tacitly,

the benefits afforded religious bodies by the government, the SBC implicitly

endorses certain behavior of the country.

I suggest the SBC set up operations on some remote island and do business.

That way they can be as remote and isolated from the rest of the world

as they want to be.

Home | News | Sports | Opinion | Weekend | Special Sections | Classifieds | Archives

Copyright 2004-Fayette Publishing, Inc.