Credentials Committee Member Speaks Out

Dear Texas Baptists:

As a member of the Credentials Committee for the 1995 BGCT annual meeting in San Antonio, I wanted you to know how the committee handled itself with regard to the contest of seating messengers from the University Baptist Church in Austin. Many representations and misinterpretations of what was done and how it was done exist. I want you to know the truth.

The Credentials Committee met in October to discuss the role, duties, and procedures for handling registration problems at the convention. This happens every year before the convention meets. The Committee is comprised of 10 people who are appointed by the officers. Some are laity, some are clergy, of various ages and location, both men and women.

At this meeting, we were briefed on the University Church situation and the actions of the Austin Association. We were given copies of page 173 of the 1969 BGCT Annual; pages 41, 42, 57, 59, 60, and 67 of the 1976 BGCT Annual; a copy of a letter dated October 9 from Larry Bethune, pastor of the church, to Dale Gore, executive director of the association; and copies of pertinent newspaper articles. We discussed some general issues related to our role as a committee, but did not make any decisions about the matter.

We were asked, and consented, to think and pray about the situation but to not make any decisions about this situation until the convention. We were asked to prepare for this church to be contested, and made provisions for our duties to be covered by noncommittee members in the event that we were called into session.

The only decision we made at that time was to be fair, kind , and do “everything decently and in order.”

On Monday, November 13, 1995, the convention opened and the first item of business was the seating of messengers, both those “duly registered and those who will duly register.” Don Workman from Southcrest Baptist Church in Lubbock made a motion that messengers from University be refused seating, based on ordination of a homosexual as deacon.

Up to that time, University had not attempted to register messengers. Since they had not yet requested registration, it was referred to the Credentials Committee for evaluation at such time as they presented themselves for registration.

About an hour later, we were called into session to address Workman’s concerns. He was present for almost the entire meeting, as were the parliamentarian and convention lawyer. After some discussion, it was made clear to us that Workman wanted us to state our position on the seating of this church before they presented themselves.

Despite the information that several committee members and the lawyer had that the pastor and one other person had registered as visitors only and that the church had decided not to send messengers because of the divisive nature of the issue, Workman pressed for some assurance that they would not be allowed to register.

Based on the guidelines and procedures set up for the Credentials Committee, we were unable to make a ruling on the church. What we decided to do was to instruct Registration to inform the committee if messengers from University Church requested ballots. At that time we would call in both parties, listen to both sides, and make a recommendation to the convention. The vote was 8 for and 2 against.

In order to satisfy Workman’s desire for the issue to be confronted by the convention, I asked the parliamentarian to tell us how he could bring the issue to the floor and be assured that the issue of homosexuals in leadership positions of local churches would be addressed. It was determined that the only way to insure this would be to make a motion to amend the By-laws and Constitution to address the issue of “like practice.”

The parliamentarian suggested a formula for his motion which included the specific sections of each document to reference. Workman was informed that the correct procedure would refer his motion to the Executive Board automatically. Although not satisfied, he agreed that this was his only option. I then asked the committee to request that the chair hear Workman’s motion from the floor if the time for these motions had already passed, due to the timing of the session, which ran through most of the afternoon business sessions. This passed with 5 for and 5 abstaining.

Workman made his motion during the evening business session without needing the special consideration. All motions at that time were slated for discussion in the Tuesday morning business session. The motion was automatically recommended for referral to the Executive Board, as is standard procedure for all amendments to the By-laws and Constitution. After limited discussion, I made a few remarks and then called for the question. The motion was referred by what I saw as an apparent 60/40 vote.

I would not make a pre-issue judgment on the situation because too many of my questions could not have been answered without a representative of the church in question. To have done so would have been to validate rumors and innuendo. I have seen the damage done by this kind of thing in the past and will not willingly be a party to it. I supported referral of the motion to amend without a discussion on the floor of the convention because of the divisive nature of the issue.

My fear was that a public confrontation without some guidance from a body such as the Executive Board or a special committee would have degenerated into a brawl that the media would have eaten up. We need to be very sensitive to the way we are seen as we approach controversial issues. This is not to say that hard questions are not to be asked and answered, but that we must constantly be aware that the public is watching us. Often they judge us not by what we say, but how we say it.

Here are a few facts for your consideration:

Since the church never presented itself for registration, there was never a credential issue. The motion to contest was made at the right time, but without a church to contest, the motion was effectively mute.

The role of the Credentials Committee in contested seatings is to hear both sides and then to make a recommendation to the body. The guidelines for seating are: a Cooperating Baptist church (one which gives to the BGCT budget, who is of like faith (subscribes to the principles in the Baptist Faith and Message) and practice (undefined beyond the Baptist Faith and Message).

Seating of messengers may be refused to any church who is divisive or otherwise destructive to the convention purposes. Contention of messengers should be done at the first point of business which is the seating of messengers.

The only evidence that any of us have at the point about the situation at University is at best third-hand and hearsay. Unsubstantiated rumors have never been a good basis for any judgment.

University Baptist Church decided not to send messengers due to the divisive nature of the issue and a desire not to distract from the business at hand. In fact, they never requested registration. The pastor and one other member were present, but would only have spoken if the pastor or the church has been personally attacked (Point of Privilege, allowed by Robert’s Rules of Order).

Workman’s notion to amend the Constitution and By-Laws to prevent seating of messengers from any church which has homosexuals as deacons or pastors, directly addresses the “like practice” clause in those documents. It also indirectly addresses the issue of local church autonomy and priesthood of the believer.

There is no precedent in previous BGCT documents, meetings or resolutions regarding the ordination practices of churches or regarding homosexuality.

The concept of local church autonomy holds that no outside organization can interfere with the local church’s policies or practices. Ordination is a local church practice. In theory, churches may ordain orangutans if they want, although the idea would be abhorrent and inappropriate for most of us.

According to the Bible, no sin is any greater than any other with the sole exception being the willful rejection of God by an individual.

Those disagreeing with any action of any church associating with the BGCT have the right to properly voice their objections. These objections should be done through the appropriate methods and procedures set up by the convention. Kim Snyder

August 1996