Missouri in Turmoil
By Mark Wingfield

Fundamentalists who last year gained control of the Missouri Baptist Convention are working quickly to replace trustees of state convention agencies and members of the convention’s Executive Board with individuals deemed more loyal to their cause.

At the same time, efforts are under way to require all Missouri Baptist Convention churches to affirm the new direction of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist Faith & Message statement.

State convention Executive Director Jim Hill, who moderates believe has been targeted for ouster by the fundamentalists, has warned that perhaps 200 churches could leave the convention if the fundamentalist mandated changes take place.

Texas and Virginia in Reverse

That opens the possibility that Missouri could experience the reverse of what has happened in Texas and Virginia, where fundamentalist churches have left existing state conventions to form new, more conservative conventions. No formal plans have been announced by any group of Missouri Baptist churches related to formation of a new convention there, although the matter is reported to be a frequent topic of private conversation.

Three Missouri Baptist Convention agencies already have voted to remove themselves from control of the state convention, and several others are expected to consider similar action before the state convention meets this fall.

The agencies that have declared themselves to have self-perpetuating boards cited liability issues as the primary reason for their actions. But those close to the situation report that a desire to distance their institutions from the turmoil of the state convention also was a factor.

Trustees of Missouri Baptist College and Windermere Baptist Conference Center have voted to create self-perpetuating boards, following the lead of The Baptist Home, a retirement home ministry.

Meanwhile, the state convention’s committee on nominations has taken even more drastic action than previously predicted in preparing this year’s slate of nominees for committee and board positions.

The committee earlier had announced its intention to create requirements for service apart from what is stipulated in the convention’s bylaws. The new requirements, adopted only by the committee and not by the convention as a whole, state that all candidates for nomination or renomination must be “supportive” of both the state convention and the SBC. Further, the committee determined that no church should be allowed to have more than two members serving concurrently anywhere within the convention’s committees or boards and that no individual should serve on more than one board at the same time.

The restrictions were billed by the committee as an effort to ensure broader participation. Critics of the changes see the committee’s guidelines as an effort to bump non-fundamentalists off committees and boards.

Both Hill and Bill Webb, editor of the Missouri Word & Way newspaper, strongly criticized the committee’s self-made guidelines, charging that the committee was violating the convention’s bylaws.

When the nominating committee met to make nominations July 26, it went beyond even its own rules, however, according to a report in the Word & Way. According to those present for the meeting, the committee voted to bump eight of the 12 individuals eligible for re-election to a customary second term on the Executive Board. Two of the 12 had declined to serve a second term, meaning the committee will retain only two of 12 members eligible for re-election.

Likewise, all four trustees of the Word & Way who were eligible for re-election were replaced. Only one of those was deemed ineligible by the committee’s guidelines. No explanation was given for removing the other three other than an attempt to put “new blood” on the board.

Missouri Mainstream Speaks Out

The Baptist Voice, newspaper of Mainstream Missouri Baptists, reported in its August issue that overall the committee declined to renominate at least 24 people who were eligible for renomination.

It quoted minority members of the nominating committee expressing frustration over the process as well.

“Our (sub)committee was given a list with all the names filled in before we ever started. It was all pretty much pre-arranged, railroaded,” said Wayne Bartee, a member of University Heights Baptist Church in Springfield. “I think they are making a big mistake with this kind of approach. It is a wholesale dismissal of people who have shown an interest, who have expertise, who have been willing and faithful in their service. It is a huge loss to these institutions in the long run.”

Hill wrote a column in the Aug. 2 Word & Way sounding a second alarm over the nominating committee’s actions. The process used by the committee “does not seem to reflect a spirit of integrity and fairness,” he charged.

Executive Director Ignored

Not only were Executive Board members eligible for renomination discarded without explanation, but also Hill’s own recommendations for members to fill six other slots were ignored. The committee did not seek to collect profile information on those recommended by Hill, he reported.

"The administrative subcommittee was not even given their names, nor was it told that I had made recommendations for their consideration,” Hill wrote. “My own recommendations should not be given more weight than those submitted by other Missouri Baptists, but I believe they at least should be considered.”

If the committee’s slate of nominees is adopted by the convention, knowledgeable observers believe the Executive Board will have a majority of members hostile toward Hill. That, they predict, could lead to his firing or forced resignation.

Marus Debunked Committee

Rob Marus, coordinator of Mainstream Missouri Baptists, wrote a commentary for the August issue of his organization’s newspaper debunking the nominating committee’s assertion that its new guidelines are intended to broaden involvement.

“The P.R. nonsense about ‘broadening the tent’ was just a fig-leaf to cover the committee’s real motivation: They wanted to, as quickly as possible, deny all who disagreed with any part of the fundamentalist agenda the ability to participate in the leadership of the Missouri Baptist Convention,” Marus charged. “A simple analysis of their recent actions betrays the committee’s true motivations: A system of political rewards.”

Meanwhile, a fundamentalist-controlled committee of the Missouri Baptist Convention plans to recommend at the fall convention that all churches desiring to be affiliated with the state convention must be in “single alignment” with the SBC and must affirm either the 1963 or 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

The recommended constitutional amendment comes from a committee on continuing review and the credentials committee. The two committees were charged with studying membership issues last year after two churches that had left the SBC sought to have messengers seated at the state convention.

Although the proposed constitutional amendment would have to be introduced at this year’s annual meeting and could not be ratified until the 2002 annual meeting, the credentials committee has interpreted the current wording to have the same effect. Therefore, the committee will enforce the requirement of alignment with the SBC beginning this year.

According to a Word & Way report, Hill warned the committees they were creating a “connectionalism” that flies in the face of Baptist autonomy. The proposed constitutional change could drive 100 to 200 churches out of the convention, he predicted.

Several members of the continuing review committee strongly disagreed with Hill’s assessment. One accused Hill of being in a conspiracy with his pastor to create an alternative state convention.

“Approve or Else”

Webb, editor of the Word & Way, wrote an editorial in the Aug. 2 issue warning of dangers in the proposed constitutional amendment. “The problem with a requirement to affirm either of the two versions of the Baptist Faith & Message is that it places the state convention in the position of telling churches to ‘approve or else,’” he wrote.

The Missouri convention has been in turmoil for at least three years, although strife has escalated within the last year. Fundamentalists have won the last three presidential elections and within the last year have solidified control over key committees.

When given an opportunity to take a severance package as part of a staff reorganization late last year, one-fourth of the state convention’s staff resigned or retired. Many of those departures were reported to be related to the ongoing conflict.

Roger Moran and “Guilt By Association”

The fundamentalist movement in Missouri has been fueled by a political effort called Project 1000, led by layman Roger Moran. Moran has gained nationwide notoriety for publishing a series of newsletters, videos and other materials highly critical of moderate Baptists, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Baptist Joint Committee, Texas Baptists Committed, and Mainstream Baptists.

Critics have accused Moran of employing “guilt by association” in his campaign. For example, he purports to link moderate Baptist leaders with pro-homosexual and pro-abortion causes because they have served on non-Baptist boards or committees alongside individuals who advocate homosexual causes or abortion rights.

Moran and other Fundamentalist leaders reported on their progress at the Aug. 14 annual meeting of Project 1000 supporters.

In addition to comments from Moran, the meeting featured reports from both the chairman of the Missouri Baptist Convention nominating committee, Jeff Purvis, and the chairman of the convention’s credentials committee, David Tolliver. Tolliver also gave a report on behalf of the committee on continuing review, whose chairman, Benny King, was unable to attend.

Purvis reiterated his defense of the nominating committee’s new guidelines. “It is time that we don’t have a ‘good old boy’ network anymore in the Missouri Baptist Convention,” he said.

According to a report in The Baptist Voice, Purvis openly criticized Hill, who was present, for expressing his opinion that the nominating committee had violated the convention’s bylaws.

“Not once were we directed to the part of the MBC constitution and bylaws that the guidelines violated because they did not,” Purvis said.

Purvis received a standing ovation from the crowd of about 120 people, according to the newspaper.

Tolliver reasserted the credentials committee’s interpretation of the convention’s constitution. “In order to be a Missouri Baptist church, you must first be a Southern Baptist church,” he said.

In his report on behalf of the continuing review committee,

also defended the proposed constitutional amendment that would require churches to affirm the Baptist Faith & Message.

This does not amount to creedalism, he asserted. “This statement does not ask anyone to sign anything. It does not ask anyone to adhere to or adopt anything. It says ‘affirm.’”