A New Convention on the Horizon: 

“But We’re not CBF”

In a Baptist Press article released December 12, 2001, the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association was quoted as stating:  “Mainstream Missouri Baptists is closing its doors [in December, 2001] because it hopes to reopen in 2002 as a new state convention.”  It now appears that the official launch of the new moderate convention will occur April 18-20 with many of the same old Mainstream/CBF leaders in the forefront of the effort.

In a letter announcing that Mainstream Missouri Baptists was “closing its doors,” the group’s president, Doyle Sager, states:  “A new Missouri Baptist Convention is on the horizon, free from Fundamentalist domination.”  He further explains that Mainstream Missouri Baptists was “stepping aside so that more permanent options in Missouri Baptist life may come to the forefront…”  By January 17, 2002, it was announced that a new convention, to be called the Baptist General Convention of Missouri, would be formed with its first annual meeting to be held in mid April. 

With political rhetoric strikingly similar to that of the “Mainstream” group, former MBC executive director Jim Hill, now operating as the chief spokesman and lead organizer for the new convention, states:  “Those involved in the organizing of the new convention are not involved in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the new convention has no plans to ‘align’ with the CBF.”   

However, in his attempt to distance the new convention from the CBF, he failed to mention that prominent CBF churches like Second Baptist, Liberty, which voted to leave the SBC and First Baptist, Independence, whose pastor is a recent past member of the national CBF Coordinating Council, were both part of the twenty churches represented at the original November 17, 2001 meeting at First Baptist, Sedalia which called for the formation of the new convention and initiated the new alternative giving plans. 

Likewise, Hill also failed to mention that First Baptist, Smithville was also one of the twenty churches at the November meeting in Sedalia.  The Pastor at Smithville is Pete Hill, a brother to Jim Hill and a former member of the national CBF Coordinating Council.  While serving as pastor at Wornall Road Baptist Church, Pete led the church to leave the SBC. It should also be noted that, according to the Texas Baptist Standard, the legal work for the new convention is being done by former Missouri CBF moderator W. B. Tichenor.  

It is also worth noting that Jim Hill had CBF in the budget of the church he pastored before becoming Executive Director of the MBC and has been among the chief defenders of CBF within Missouri Baptist life.  In an effort to downplay the seriousness of specific concerns raised by MBLA regarding the liberalism that permeates CBF, Hill stated in May 2001 that “the vast majority of that group [CBF] is just very conservative Southern Baptists, who are unwilling to be told they have to do their work one way.  So they formed an organization to do it their way.  That’s what Baptists typically do.”

So the question arises:  If indeed the vast majority of CBF is just “very conservative Southern Baptists,” why all the efforts to distance the new convention from the CBF?  The undeniable facts are that CBF leaders in Missouri and anti-SBC leaders of the now defunct Mainstream Missouri Baptists are not only involved in the formation of the new convention, but clearly represent the core leadership.    

The New Convention:  “Friendly Cooperation” with the SBC?

From the very beginning of Project 1000, the battle in the MBC has been about whether the MBC would continue its historic relationship with the SBC or whether we would go the way of Texas  --  gradually severing our ties with the SBC and gradually forging new partnerships with the CBF.  From the very first publications of Mainstream Missouri Baptists, anti-SBC moderates and supporters of CBF were identified as the “traditional Baptists.”  Conservative, pro-SBC supporters of Project 1000 and the conservative leadership of the SBC were identified as capital “F” Fundamentalists to be opposed.   

For such obvious reasons as these, the Executive Committee of the SBC rejected Jim Hill’s request for the new convention to be recognized by the SBC as in “friendly cooperation with the purposes and work of the Southern Baptist Convention.” SBC Executive Committee president Morris Chapman said it well in his letter to Jim Hill:  “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.” 

Indeed, it is naive at best to think that those supportive of the work and direction of the national Mainstream/CBF movement would also be supportive of the conservative SBC.  They are as two different trains on two different tracks, going in two different directions with two distinctly different destinations.  Those who claim they can comfortably ride both trains either don’t know where they are being taken or don’t care where they are going.       

We Need A Second State Convention, Because… 

If the new convention being planned by the Mainstream/CBF faction of the MBC is going to attract enough churches to justify its existence, there must be compelling reasons for churches to leave the strongly pro-SBC Missouri Baptist Convention.  Now that the SBC has declared that the new convention will not be recognized as an SBC state convention, what compelling reasons would cause a church supportive of the SBC to join the new convention?  More importantly, besides the CBF, with whom will the new convention “partner” in its “missions and ministry” endeavors?  Even Jim Hill, speaking at the January 17 meeting in Sedalia, conceded that the “political reality” in Missouri was such that the vast majority of the churches in Missouri will have nothing to do with the CBF. 

In light of these things, the reasons cited by the Mainstream/CBF faction of the MBC for forming a new convention becomes all the more significant.  According to a recent letter written by Jim Hill, the new convention is “forming in response to several actions taken by the MBC…”  In the letter, Hill cites four specific reasons as the basis for forming a new convention.  They are:

·         The messenger’s decision to escrow Cooperative Program funds going to the five MBC institutions that voted to become self-perpetuating boards.  

·         The messenger’s decision to secure a legal opinion regarding the actions of the five trustee boards.  

·         The messenger’s refusal to seat the messengers from Second Baptist Church in Liberty which voted as a church to withdraw from the SBC.   

·         The messenger’s approval of the Nominating Committee report which did not give second terms to some trustees eligible for a second term. 

While each of these convention actions passed by three to one margins (75%), the greater question might be:  Are these legitimate concerns for leaving the MBC and forming a new state convention, or is there a deeper issue not being talked about?   

While the issues and concerns raised by the organizers of the new convention are quite significant, there are, however, some important points that need to be clearly articulated.   

·         Escrowing of funds:  While Jim Hill and other moderate leaders have focused heavily on the messenger’s decision to “escrow funds,” they have not been so willing to talk about the trustee’s decisions to “steal” the five MBC agencies and their assets from Missouri Baptists.  It is critically important to note that the escrowing of funds came after -- and as a direct result of ­­­-- the “stealing” of the five agencies by a small band of “moderate” trustees.

The question also needs to be asked:  Why has there been no bold proclamations from Word & Way about the trustee’s brazen violation of trust and their blatant violation of the MBC Constitution / Bylaws and the charters of the five agencies, which require the nominating committee to nominate and the MBC messengers to elect the trustees to the various boards and agencies of the MBC?

Why has there been no outcry from Word & Way declaring that the trustee’s actions severed all ties of accountability to the MBC and that there is now no restraints to prevent the five “stolen” agencies from entering the “CBF orbit.”  (Interestingly, the moderator of the Missouri CBF serves on the trustee board of Missouri Baptist College.)     

MBC moderates have been working frantically to get an “alternative funding program” started and to get a new convention launched in order to begin making up for the $2 million loss of funding for the five “stolen” agencies.  However, it is important to note that if the agencies want the CP money placed in escrow, all the messengers required was to rescind their wrongful actions which created self-perpetuating boards and seat the duly elected trustees elected by the messengers as required by the MBC Constitution and the charters of the five agencies.  

Had the messengers failed to escrow the funds to the five agencies, the MBC Executive Board would still have had to deal with Article 10 of the MBC Executive Board’s Articles of Incorporation which states:  “The Board shall not extend any financial or other assistance to any of such institutions whose property and funds are not safeguarded to the Baptist denomination.”

·         Securing a legal opinion:  Writing in a recent letter, Jim Hill states that the convention voted to “pursue legal action” against the five institutions.  Actually, the motion passed by the messenger’s instructs the MBC Executive Board to “secure a legal opinion” in reference to the actions taken” by the five agencies.  The motion further states:  “…if the legal opinion indicates their actions were improper, then we further instruct the Executive Board to take any and all steps necessary to restore them to their former relationship with the Missouri Baptist Convention.” 

The convention messengers voted overwhelmingly for the Executive Board to secure a “legal opinion” to determine if indeed the actions of the trustees of the agencies violated state or federal law, since their actions involved the seizing of millions of dollars in assets from Missouri Baptists.  Clearly, the motion leaves open the possibility of legal action if indeed the trustees actions violated state or federal law.  But if the trustee’s actions are found to be only “unethical” but not “illegal,” what basis would the convention have for legal action? 

However, if the convention’s “legal opinions” determine that the trustee’s actions were illegal, would not the trustees rescind their actions or, as some have suggested, at the very least submit to “Christian arbitration” to settle the matter?  According to Jim Hill, the trustee’s actions “were not only legal, but they were faithfully carrying out their responsibilities as trustees.”  If indeed this is true, then the trustees of the agencies should be more than willing to submit to “Christian arbitration” to settle the dispute no matter what the “legal opinion” says.  However, in light of the trustee’s refusal to heed the demand of the overwhelming vote of the messengers calling on the trustees to rescind their actions and to seek reconciliation, why should they be expected to reverse their actions or even submit to “Christian arbitration?”

·         Messenger’s refusal to seat messengers from Second Baptist Church in Liberty:  In a widely circulated “open letter” from Jim Hill, he writes:  “I was grieved like many Missouri Baptists to see the convention vote to revoke the messenger credentials of one of our oldest churches at this year’s annual meeting.  I believe the present [MBC] leadership will continue to exclude churches.” 

Messengers voted overwhelmingly to refuse credentials to Second Baptist Church, Liberty, a prominent CBF church that voted to leave the SBC.  The church was refused credentials after the credentials committee recommended that a challenge to the church’s credentials be upheld and messengers voted overwhelmingly to uphold the decision of the credentials committee.  The decision of the credentials committee was based on the constitutional requirement that an MBC church must also be an SBC church. 

It is also important to note that Second Baptist, Liberty is one of only five churches in the MBC officially aligned with the Alliance of Baptist, a forerunner to the CBF that makes up the left-wing of the CBF.  The Alliance of Baptists, which consists of approximately 105 churches across the SBC, is openly and officially a pro-homosexual organization.

Interestingly, Second Baptist, Liberty was one of the twenty participating churches in the original November 17, 2001 planning meeting at First Baptist Church in Sedalia which initiated the alternative giving plans through the Missouri Baptist Foundation and called for the new convention. 

Encouraging churches to join the new convention in an open letter to Missouri Baptists, Jim Hill writes in regard to Second Baptist, Liberty:  “Those who desire to include their sister churches and are willing to respect the differences that come with local church autonomy can vote to seat messengers others would exclude.”  It should be noted that Second Baptist, Liberty was fully aware that their decision to leave the SBC would result in their credentials being challenged at the 2001 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention.  The previous year, Wornall Road Baptist Church, pastored by Pete Hill, also voted to leave the SBC and became the focus of a Missouri CBF campaign to prevent that church from losing it’s credentials at the 2000 convention.  The Missouri CBF is led by Harold Phillips, long-time staffer and member of Second Baptist, Liberty.  

·         Nominating Committee:  In a recent letter written by Jim Hill, he states:  “The [conservative] MBC leadership ignored convention adopted rules and constitutional guidelines in order to nominate their representatives to the various boards.” 

Hill’s argument against the nominating committee is based on the idea that if a particular trustee is “eligible” for a second term, it must be granted.  However, the nominating committee noted that “the word eligible does not mean automatic or guaranteed.” 

The nominating committee came under sustained attack by MBC moderates -- specifically Word & Way editor Bill Webb and then MBC executive director Jim Hill – starting at the March 2001 meeting when, for the first time, conservatives became a voting majority.  Thus, at that meeting, the nominating committee established “guidelines” it would use in the selection of nominees to the various boards and agencies of the MBC. 

The three guidelines adopted by the conservative nominating committee was clearly intended to set a new standard of broader participation of Missouri Baptists on the various boards and agencies of the MBC and to establish the convention‘s commitment to seek leaders supportive of the SBC rather than the CBF.  Likewise, the “guidelines” were viewed as a direct assault against the moderate’s deeply entrenched “good-ole-boy network.”  The three guidelines that were adopted by the committee that would serve as the new standard for the committee’s selection of nominees, were:  

1.       “No person shall be eligible to serve on more than one of the boards, institutions, commissions or the Executive Board of the MBC at a time;” 

2.       “Each MBC church shall be allowed to have a maximum of two persons represented on the boards, institutions, commissions or the Executive Board of the MBC.”  (Numerous prominent, moderate churches had five to eight members serving on MBC boards and agencies at the same time); and

3.       “All Missouri Baptists serving on the various boards, institutions, commissions and Executive Board of the MBC be supportive of both the MBC and the SBC…”  (Considering the public declaration by Jim Hill that his new convention would be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC, it is difficult to understand why this “guideline” was so offensive.)    

Though Jim Hill vehemently opposed the committee’s guidelines, he acknowledged in Word & Way that:  “Obviously, the nominating committee has the right to nominate or re-nominate anyone the committee deems a worthy candidate.”

While it would certainly have been fair to say: “I disagreed with the nominating committee’s guidelines and their decision not to re-nominate some individuals for a second term,” it is simply  intellectual dishonesty to argue that the nominating committee violated “convention adopted rules and constitutional guidelines.”  As noted by the chairman of the nominating committee in an unpublished letter to Word & Way:  “I consulted two parliamentarians who are very familiar with our constitution and bylaws…  Both of them agree, our guidelines DO NOT violate the MBC constitution and bylaws.”   

Conclusion

Lastly, Jim Hill said in one of his recent letters that the controversy in the MBC “is not about theology.”  But indeed, that is exactly what it has been about.  When Project 1000 was launched in early 1998, we identified our primary concern as the growing influence of the CBF within the MBC.  We carefully stated that we were not saying that the leadership of the MBC was “liberal,” but rather, that our concern was about the willingness of a significant portion of our convention’s “moderate” leadership to open the doors of our convention to the liberal influences of the CBF.  The issue, we said, was not that our leaders were “liberal,” but rather that the most rank forms of moral, social and theological liberalism that permeates CBF obviously was not a problem.  The rise of Mainstream Missouri Baptists, with its array of prominent MBC/CBF leaders, gave eloquent testimony to the validity of our concern. 

Again, in his recent letter, Jim Hill castigates the conservative, pro-SBC leadership of Project 1000, stating that the controversy in the MBC is about “power politics.”  In this case, Hill was right.  When the democratic process no longer produced the results desired by hard-line MBC moderates and their “political power” was clearly beginning to evaporate, they simply began to systematically dismantle the convention, voting to “steal” the five MBC agencies while they still had the votes to do it.  All this was done with total disregard for the expressed will of the messengers and the legal documents whereby Missouri Baptists have always governed ourselves.   

Now, just weeks after brokering a $150,000 severance package for himself while moderates still controlled the MBC Executive Board, Jim Hill is leading the effort to form a new splinter convention that will not be recognized by the SBC and is clearly supportive of the CBF.  It would appear that the options before Missouri Baptists are more clear than ever  --  SBC or CBF?