JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (BP)–Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) leaders praised Morris H. Chapman, president and chief executive officer of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee Feb. 4 for recommending the SBC not accept Cooperative Program money from a proposed new state convention.
“Morris Chapman outlined, very adequately, what the proper convention relationships should be with the SBC,” said MBC President Bob Curtis, MBC. “He reiterated that we already have a mechanism in place for Missouri Baptist churches to support SBC missions and ministries. They can do that through the MBC. There is no need for another state convention.
“I would encourage those who would seek to hurt the MBC to prayerfully repent and lovingly be restored to our state convention so that we can work together to reach people for Christ rather than creating dissension in our state.”
Curtis’ comments came as a supportive response to a Jan. 25 letter from Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee, to Jim Hill, a leader of the proposed moderate-led Baptist General Convention of Missouri (BGCM).
“I cannot recommend the Southern Baptist Convention enter into a relationship with your proposed new Baptist state convention in Missouri whereby you would collect Cooperative Program gifts to forward to us,” Chapman wrote in his letter to Hill, who resigned last October as MBC executive director amid a climate of disagreement with the state convention’s executive board.
“A state convention is to be in ‘friendly cooperation’ with the Southern Baptist Convention,” Chapman said. “The Missouri Baptist Convention remains our Cooperative Program collection agent for Baptist churches in Missouri. It continues to act faithfully in regard to promoting the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention among Baptists in Missouri and forwards Cooperative Program gifts for national and international causes exclusively to the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Chapman noted that leaders of the proposed BGCM hold “sentiments I would be hard-pressed to interpret as in ‘friendly cooperation’ with the purposes and work of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“The Southern Baptist Convention is not perfect nor should we be exempt from criticism and differing opinions. We are, however, generally pleased with our direction, our confession, our leaders, and our emphases. To allow a group that is so openly in disagreement with the SBC to collect our CP gifts from the churches implies some kind of endorsement of the group’s point of view. We do not wish to send mixed signals to the churches in Missouri, nor do we wish to harm the work of the Missouri Baptist Convention or the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Chapman pointed out how the BGCM plans to offer multiple giving plans, not all of which would be related to the SBC. He also pointed out how the proposed new convention will “welcome relationships with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), a group known for actively encouraging Southern Baptist churches to discontinue support for our convention’s work.”
Kenny Qualls, first vice president of the MBC, a member of the SBC Executive Committee, and pastor of Springhill Baptist Church in Springfield, called Chapman’s stand “loving and Christ-like,” but “without compromise.”
Qualls admonished BGCM leaders for attempting to “wean away” churches from the MBC. “They [BGCM leaders] are saying, ‘We’ll send the church’s gifts to you today so we can take the churches from you tomorrow.’ Their actions speak louder than words. Their actions say, ‘If we cannot control the MBC, then we will dismantle it, leave it, and lead others away from it.”
Messengers to the MBC annual meeting last October in Cape Girardeau, voted overwhelmingly to place more than $2.2 million in CP giving to The Baptist Home, Missouri Baptist College in St. Louis, Windermere Conference Center, Missouri Baptist Foundation and the Word & Way news journal in escrow until the respective boards rescind their action of self-perpetuating boards. The convention’s executive board also is exploring possible legal action to challenge the trustees’ actions.
It is not known how many of the state’s 2,000 Southern Baptist churches might join the new convention, which is scheduled to have its first meeting April 18-20 at Fee Fee Baptist Church in St. Louis. Conservatives estimate the number will be less than 75, while moderates are not saying.
Hill was among the organizers of the proposed new convention who held a recent information meeting about the proposed convention. The Jan. 17 meeting in Sedalia, Mo., was attended by about 350 people, but not were moderates or supporters.
Moderates at the Sedalia meeting presented a proposal for multiple giving plans that would be offered by the proposed convention. That prompted the letter from Chapman.
Hill and other leaders of the still-forming group met via conference call Jan. 31 to draft a response to Chapman’s letter.
They took issue with Chapman’s assertion that the BGCM CP funds should not be accepted because the SBC already has a relationship with the MBC.
“Of course, the SBC already had a relationship with Southern Baptists in Virginia and Texas, but that did not keep them from developing a new relationship with the new conventions established in these states during recent years,” the BGCM leaders said.
Chapman, in a statement to the press, pointed out that in the cases of Virginia and Texas new state conventions were formed “only after the original state conventions had corrupted the historic meaning of the Cooperative Program” by establishing funding channels apart from the traditional SBC-state convention relationship.
“In this instance the original state convention, the Missouri Baptist Convention remained a loyal, committed partner in SBC missions,” Chapman said.
Curtis agreed with that assessment, saying BGCM leaders are comparing “apples to oranges.”
“In the case of Virginia and Texas, they as state conventions, began moving away from support of the SBC, leaving conservatives no choice but to support the new funding mechanisms or begin their own convention.” The latter was chosen in both cases.
BGCM organizers, in their letter to Chapman, also objected to Chapman’s belief that “many of those persons opposing the current direction of the Missouri Baptist Convention are the same ones who have been opposing the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years and who have been attempting to dissuade churches in Missouri from supporting our work.”
BGCM organizers said many of them are from some of Missouri’s oldest and most historic churches, many of which have been faithful supporters of the Cooperative Program.
“These churches have been and continue to be loyal Southern Baptists,” the BGCM leaders said. “It is absurd to imply that they are not in ‘friendly cooperation with the purposes and work of the Southern Baptist Convention.'”
Curtis said that is only partly true.
“You still have churches like Second Baptist Church of Liberty and several others that are in one fashion or another sympathetic to the CBF,” he said. Indeed, First Baptist Church of Jefferson City has hosted CBF meetings and its pastor, Doyle Sager, as been active in his support of the CBF.
BGCM leaders took issue with Chapman’s belief that the proposed convention “plans to incorporate practices contrary to the best interests of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
“How can it be contrary to the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention to allow Southern Baptist congregations that have formed an autonomous state convention to forward Cooperative Program funds to SBC causes?” they asked.
But Chapman made it clear that a mechanism is already in place for funds to be sent to the SBC – that being through the MBC.
Curtis said what the BGCM organizers are proposing will simply confuse churches.
“I think Dr. Chapman cleared up any question about peoples’ giving through an alternative funding mechanism or state convention,” Curtis said. “Churches need to continue to support the MBC, they need to continue to come to the MBC annual meetings and vote their convictions, and continue as a family as we have for the many years we have been in existence. Competing state conventions will only cause further strife within our associations and churches.”
Meanwhile, BGCM organizers settled on a new name for the proposed new convention after two people from an organization loyal to the MBC and SBC filed incorporation papers to block the new group from using the previously announced name, the Baptist Convention of Missouri.
Cindy Province and Kerry Messer, members of the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association, filed the papers obtaining the exclusive rights to the proposed name. They said they did so because the proposed name was too close to the Missouri Baptist Convention and was designed to confuse Baptists around the state.
“I think it probably would have caused some confusion,” Curtis said. “I guess they [Province and Messer] were exercising their priesthood-of-the-believer rights.”
Qualls, who is chairman of the MBC’s executive director search committee, said the MBC is continuing to have “listening” sessions at churches throughout the state to hear what they want in the way of a new executive director. He said the feedback has been positive and the search committee hopes to have a new executive director in place before the MBC’s next annual meeting.
The MBC has also retained legal counsel and is exploring the possibility of legal action against the trustees of the five entities traditionally affiliated with the MBC. A status report is expected when the MBC Executive Board meets in April.
–30–
