To most people listening to the report of the membership committee at the recent General Council session of the Baptist World Alliance, it appeared the Southern Baptist Convention won. To gain membership in the BWA, the membership committee declared, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) would have to declare itself a totally separate body from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
That is what SBC leaders have been trying to get the CBF to do for the 10 years of the new organization’s existence. SBC leaders have repeatedly said the CBF has all the trappings of a new denomination. It has governance. It has a missions program. It has a church literature source. It has partnerships that provide theological education, ethics and public policy information, religious liberty advocacy and more.
At the past two annual meetings of the BWA General Council, prominent SBC leaders have declared that if the CBF would acknowledge itself as a separate convention, then these leaders would offer the motion for CBF to be accepted as a BWA member.
Declaring itself a new convention is exactly what CBF officials have resisted. In 1995 CBF rejected a motion to form a separate convention from the SBC. Leaders said taking that step would be divisive in local churches.
As recently as late June CBF coordinator Daniel Vestal bluntly stated, “It ain’t gonna happen” when asked about the organization becoming a new convention. Some CBF supporters describe the CBF as a “caucus group” within the SBC similar to ethnic fellowships within the convention. That has led to confusion about whether CBF remains an integral part of the SBC or if it is a separate body.
BWA membership committee chairman Ian Hawley, general secretary of the Australian Baptist Mission Society, spoke clearly. CBF would have to publicly declare itself a separate body from the SBC. Also, because one of BWA’s roles is to promote unity within the worldwide Baptist family, CBF must be willing to participate in a reconciliation session led by BWA with SBC leaders. The goal would be reconciliation; short of that, at least, mutual respect and cooperation.
CBF leaders jumped at the opportunity for BWA membership. Vestal predicted that CBF’s General Council would make such a statement at its October meeting. However, he hesitated to use the word “denomination” or “convention.” Instead, Vestal talked about the CBF as an “association.” The membership committee did not quibble over terms. The committee said “association” is a historical term with the same implications as “convention” or “union.”
The key point is that CBF must say to the world that it is not an integral part of the SBC. That was the position SBC leaders wanted. It looked like they won.
However, what followed muddied the water and now an SBC ad hoc committee is studying the future of the convention’s relationship with the BWA. Separation is a possibility.
The membership committee departed from its normal procedures and shared the reasoning behind the report. SBC representatives had requested that not be done. A call by BWA President Billy Kim to vote on the committee’s report also added confusion.
Some thought the vote was the customary acknowledgement of receiving the report as information. Others thought the vote put the General Council on record of approving the reasoning for the committee’s conclusions. SBC leaders differed with the reasoning, at points, and voted “no” with a loud, unified voice.
In a matter of minutes, what looked like a clear victory for the SBC turned into an issue that may cause the largest Baptist body in the world to withdraw from the BWA, an organization which Southern Baptists helped found almost a century ago.
Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee, wondered why the committee ignored the request of the SBC representatives. James Draper, president of LifeWay Christian Resources, described the way the report was presented as “in your face to the SBC.”
Both Chapman and Draper contend that if the membership committee had reported that two things had to happen before CBF is accepted to BWA membership — a public statement and a reconciliation attempt — there would be no problem.
Now SBC representatives are wondering if there is an anti-SBC feeling among the majority of BWA member bodies. Questions about the membership committee changing its reporting policy abound. Has the membership committee passed its responsibility on to the General Council and now all the members will determine if CBF meets the conditions?
Another large issue is what kind of statement CBF will make, if any. Vestal told General Council members CBF has always been separate from the SBC. Simply repeating that phrase is not likely to satisfy the SBC. Chapman said he wants the CBF to say the organization will stop soliciting members and contributions in SBC churches.
On Sept. 16–17, BWA General Secretary Denton Lotz and BWA President Billy Kim will meet in Nashville with the SBC Baptist World Alliance Study Committee. What will come from this meeting, no one can predict. One thing is sure: What comes from this meeting and from any subsequent meetings is important to Baptists around the world.
Baptist leaders in many parts of the world anxiously wait to learn if differences over the process used in considering a BWA membership question will be enough to fracture the unity of the Baptist world family.
Please pray for the Sept. 16–17 meetings and for all those involved in the situation.
Share with others: