Beware Coercion Replacing Cooperation
by Charles C. McLaughlin,
Associate Coordinator

As a pastor for nearly 15 years, I cooperated with several associations in both rural and city settings. I participated in joint efforts with pastors and churches to birth a variety of ministries such as camps, retreats, evangelism rallies and training, counseling and social ministries.

In the rural setting the small number of churches made the felt need for others more acute. In all cases, the focus was on cooperative efforts to further the kingdom of God.

In each situation there were always some churches who were considered uncooperative. While there are several reasons churches do not cooperate, two reasons were particularly bothersome to other associational leaders.

One reason was that some churches (or leaders) were doing their own thing to the degree that they did not need or want anyone else.

A second reason was that some felt growing their church put them into competition with others, so they spent more energy castigating other churches (or leaders) than in promoting cooperation. Their bottom line was the numerical growth of their church, which came at the expense of the greater good that could be done through cooperation. This can happen when you get your kingdom confused with God's Kingdom.

Unfortunately, churches are competing with other churches in an organized way, this time for control of the local association. To some churches the growth of the Southern Baptist Convention's kingdom will be more important than the growth of God's Kingdom.

They will use the following methods in their attempts to assert control over their association.

1. They will practice coercion instead of cooperation

Some associations in Texas have aligned with the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message as a basis for cooperation. In Oklahoma, a state strongly controlled by fundamentalists, the associational Directors of Missions (DOM's) walked lockstep with SBC leaders by passing a resolution firmly supporting the 2000 BF&M.

Even more, the DOM's "encourage the pastors and members of the churches to consider seriously adoption of the June 14, 2000 revision as their generally accepted confession of faith."

Do you feel this pressure that it's their way or the highway? In Oklahoma it appears to be that churches had better get in line with the program or suffer the consequences. It is coercion from the top down to conform using associations in an attempt to get to the local church.

Texas associations also feel the pressure of political pushing. It is not the conservative/moderates trying to force their theology on the association. There would be no fighting in associations if it were not for fundamentalists trying to have their way.

2. They will limit information to only what they want others to know

Fundamentalist leaders and pastors will consider themselves to be the gatekeepers of information.

They will feed whoever is willing to swallow their rhetoric Baptist Press propaganda , the guilt by association tactics of Baptist Laymen's Associations and a variety of speculative rumors while cutting off lay people's access to the Baptist Standard, Associated Baptist Press and information from the BGCT regarding its stand on controversial issues.

They want to define the views of BGCT instead of letting the BGCT speak for itself.

Once people are taught to be prejudiced it becomes more difficult for them to accept the truth.

If you are a layperson who believes the BGCT supports homosexuality and abortion, then you have been manipulated with false information.

3. They will emphasize a narrow minded view of scripture and de-emphasize the practice of cooperation

In the midst of a world with social, emotional and spiritual needs that can be better met through cooperation, they will choose to argue and create division over the Bible.

T.C. Pinckney, leader of the state fundamentalist convention in Virginia, summarized this view, "Scripture, not cooperation is primary."

While the world needs Jesus they will feel justified to argue about the Bible as though it belonged solely to them.

Many of them will champion the idea that if one does not believe the same as the 2000 BF&M, then that person is a liberal and not a Southern Baptist.

"When the messengers of the SBC enacted the current reading of the BFM what they were saying was: 'This is what Southern Baptists believe.' Thus, if one does not believe the things stated in the BFM they can NOT be a Southern Baptist (caps in original quote)." This idea is the view of many Baptists, but not historical traditional Southern Baptists. This is a quote from an independent fundamentalist Baptist, Dr. Devries. At least he is honest enough to say he is not a Southern Baptist. The truth is neither are the SBC leaders and what used to be our beloved denomination.

The SBC is an independent fundamentalist convention. Just ask Jerry Falwell. Associations will continue to feel the pressure from fundamentalists to move to the Southern Baptist of Texas while spreading misinformation about the BGCT. They have a proven track record of their willingness to split conventions, churches and associations.

Once we were cooperative, not perfect, but working together for the big picture, God's Kingdom. Now we argue. Who started this mess anyway?

September 2000