John Hatcher is pastor
of Outreach International Center, 1091 South Jeff Davis Drive,
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215. 770-719-0303
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 Ð 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.
