DEFUNDING BGCT SEEMS PUNITIVE

Several Texas churches have lessened their support of the BGCT, most notably First Baptist, Dallas, (O.S. Hawkins pastor) and Coggin Avenue Baptist, Brownwood, (John Avant pastor). These churches have flipped their percentage giving and now give the SBC 64.5 percent and the BGCT 35.5 percent. This is in response to the vote in Amarillo regarding the definition of the Cooperative Program.

Miles Seaborn, president of the newly named Southern Baptists of Texas, stated, “We aren’t angry at anyone nor are we wanting to attack anyone… We are committed to the Southern Baptist Convention… Now that the BGCT changed the definition of the CP, we are compelled to respond.”

Let us try to apply a little logic to this statement.

First, the SBC Executive Committee changed the definition of the Cooperative Program before we did in Texas. In 1993, they changed the definition so that churches could by-pass their state conventions and send money directly to Nashville and it would count as “Cooperative Program” gifts. Is it right for them to do it, but wrong for Texas Baptists?

Second, the SBC Executive Committee changed the definition of the Cooperative Program again during its meeting February 20-22, 1995. This time they decided that only gifts now sent to the Executive Committee without restriction will be considered “Cooperative Program” gifts. Gifts with restrictions will be considered “designated” gifts.

This means gifts given by Texas Churches directly to the Foreign Mission Board, but not to the SBC unified budget are no longer “Cooperative Program” gifts. This is exclusive action compared with he BGCT vote in Amarillo which was inclusive.

In fact, in Texas, we are trying so hard to be fair and inclusive, that we allow fundamentalist churches to negative designate up to five programs, agencies, or institutions, in the BGCT budget and still count all gifts “Cooperative Program.”

Third, what did the “Amarillo Act” (as they have dubbed it) do that affected Miles Seaborn and his church, or O.S. Hawkins, John Avant, and their churches so that they feel “compelled to respond.” Answer: NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

The passage of the Cooperative Missions Study Committee recommendations has absolutely no effect whatsoever over any church that does not want it to affect them! The recommendations changed nothing for Miles Seaborn and O. S. Hawkins or their churches. They are free to give their Cooperative Program gifts just like they always have. NOTHING CHANGED!

What did change is that others who give differently are now treated with equal respect. Their gifts count as Cooperative Program dollars also (not instead of). This is fair. It also was done to avoid division, not create division. The reasoning is obvious. Where division already exists, the best way to dampen that division is too regard everyone’s viewpoint with respect. Texas Baptists voted to do that.

It is interesting that well-known authority on church growth, Lyle Schaller, was recently asked in Atlanta about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. His two-point response was significant: “If the SBC survives it will be through letting the churches contribute their mission money as they wish, and that individual participation in the decision-making process and implementation of those decisions would be permitted and encouraged. He called the latter point, the genius of Southern Baptists.”

That is exactly what Texas Baptists are trying to do, survive and remain united by being fair.

What will destroy this attempt at respect and cooperation is punitive action on the part of those who do not agree with what Texas Baptists have done even though they are not affected by it.

Why use the word punitive? Because logical reasoning indicates that is the only legitimate basis for the action of diverting funds from the BGCT. Think about it.

Something else did not change in Amarillo, namely the programs and staff of the BGCT. Texas Baptists have the same Executive Director, the same director of the State Missions Commission, the Evangelism department, the Christian Life Commission, and all the same presidents of the eight and universities. All the same.

If you could in good conscience support the programs and budget of the BGCT prior to the vote in Amarillo, then why could you not continue to do so now? Nothing has changed. Same leaders, same programs.

The logical answer is you could, if you were not angry and did not want to hurt the BGCT. Logic indicates that the only motivation behind the defunding of the BGCT is a punitive motivation. Why? Because the vote did not affect the church’s that are defunding the BGCT nor affect the programs of the BGCT.

So you might ask, “What about Texas churches that are supporting the Fellowship? Is that not motivated by a desire to hurt the SBC? Is that not the same thing?”

Again, logic applied to that situation answers “no.” It is like comparing apples and oranges. Things are totally different.

Everything about the leadership and programs of the SBC has changed. Ken Hemphill is not Russell Dilday; Jerry Rankin is not Keith Parks; Richard Land is not Foy Valentine; Jimmy Draper is not Lloyd Elder; Mark Coppenger is not Harold Bennett; Paige Patterson is not Randall Lolley; and Al Mohler is not Roy Hunnicutt.

The Baptist Joint Committee has been defunded, along with the International Baptist Seminary in Europe. The historic stance on religious liberty is being compromised; five-point Calvinist who believe in double predestination are now preferred for Southern Seminary teaching positions; the Criswell College staff moved to North Carolina to work with Paige Patterson; and now the WMU has had their program statement to raise mission funds taken from them because, as the fundamentalists openly admit, the WMU refuses to give in to fundamentalist control.

The SBC of 1995 in no way resembles the SBC of 1975 — in personality or practice. Logic says that to stop funding what is no longer consistent with Baptist principles and practices, (most of what the SBC is doing now), in order to support alternatives that are consistent with Baptist principles is probably the most Baptist thing a church can do with its missions money. There is a big difference in not funding some of the programs of the SBC and in not funding some of the programs of the BGCT. The SBC has radically changed. The BGCT has not changed.

April 1995