MINORITY REPORT: FOCUSING ON CONTROL

Five members of the Cooperative Giving Study Committee are going to bring a minority report at the BGCT annual meeting in Amarillo. Their position is that “only gifts to the BGCT and the SBC should count as Cooperative Program gifts.”

It matters little to them that gifts to the BGCT and the SBC are counted as Cooperative Program gifts. Being included is not enough. What matters to them is that “only” their gifts should count as Cooperative Program gifts.

In Texas, we are attempting to say that the local church is right. Give as you choose and we will respect your local church decision. Sure seems fair and Baptist.

Their report has ten points. It would be easy to explain the flaws in each of them. We will address only two.

Point 7 states: “The majority’s plan does not bring fairness and equity as they claim. It is a knockout blow for one side. It is winner-take-all all. While one group feels more included another group will certainly feel less included.”

This is amazing reasoning. How is it possibly “winner-take-all” when every church may make its own decision? They basically say that if others are treated as fairly as them, they will feel left out. Only their method of giving should count. Leave others out and they will feel included!

As Cecil Ray, chairman of the committee stated so well at the BGCT Executive Board meeting, “It is fair to every church. If a church does not like the recommendations, it is not because it takes privileges away, but because it grant privileges they don’t want another church to have.”

Point 10 states: “The majority’s proposals set up unnecessary confrontation. The proposals of the majority drive a wedge between those who strongly support the Southern Baptist Convention and those who strongly oppose it. This is unneeded. The proposals will promote division and conflict, not harmony and unity.”

Now this reasoning is truly amazing. Is it not more reasonable to believe that a wedge already exists and that the wedge was caused by firing Dan Martin, Al Shackleford, Russell Dilday and others; recklessly claiming that people in our seminaries are liberals; putting out false information about the personal lives and the theological beliefs of Winfred Moore, Richard Jackson, and Daniel Vestal; defunding our European Seminary and the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; rejecting the ministries of Keith Parks, Foy Valentine, Larry Baker, Lloyd Elder, Randall Lolley, Roy Hunnicutt and now, Molly Marshall; courting Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right; voting at the 1993 SBC convention to tell churches how they can give their funds; and instructing the Home Mission Board to “study state conventions that channel designated funds”?

It seems to us that the report drives no wedge, but rather recognizes that a wedge exists and thus is an attempt to figure out how we can work together despite the wedge. It is a sincere effort to promote harmony and unity despite the wedge. It treats all Baptists fairly, just like we always do in Texas.

A final thought: If this were an SBC appointed committee, would there have been a minority on the committee to bring a report?

September 1994