I want to know JESUS About the SBC Contact  
 Information and Inspiration on Issues of Importance to Baptists
Sixth and Final Report of the SBC Funding Study
The Fifth and Final Report of the SBC
Stand For Marriage
Final Report of Ad Hoc CP Committee
Final Report of Ad Hoc CP Committee (Appendices)
Cooperative Program Advance Plan
Fourth Report of the SBC Funding Study Committee
Review of NOBTS's Sole Membership Charter Amend.
Response to reservations about sole membership
Reservations Concerning a Charter Amendment Prop.
Sole Membership - A Florida Laymanís Perspecti
A Letter to Dr. Denton Lotz
Letter from Albert W. Wardin
The Relation of the SBC to its Entities
SBC Funding Study - State of Giving
What is Sole Membership?
Sole Membership
Letter to Missouri Churches
Questions and Answers
Behind the Scenes at the SBC
Response by Morris H. Chapman to the BGCT
Does It Matter What Missionaries Believe?
Letter to the Baptist Standard
On Facts and Fallacies
Letter by SBC EC President to Dr. James L. Hill
A View from the Other Side
Carter's rift with SBC not a new development
SBTS Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee
Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee Report
SBTS Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee
Exec. Comm. Interacts with BGCT Funding Proposal
The Pastor's Point of View on the BGCT
Feasibility Study for Name Change
Report of the SBC Peace Committee
Doctrine, Cooperation, and Association
Report to the Fellowship of Deacons
Too High a View of Scripture?
The Truth about the SBC and Texas
Christ, The Bible, and Human Experience
Bibliolatry ó A Fraudulent Accusation
BFM - Still Thoroughly Baptist!
Texas First, Texas Only - Not the Spirit
Anti-SBC Leaders Threaten Cooperative Program
Southern Baptists and Women Pastors
The Root of the SBC Controversy
Your Church Reaching the World for Christ
Together We're Carrying Out the Great Commission
Doctrinal integrity paramount for Serminary
Have Baptists replaced Jesus with a book?
Why theology matters for the Great Commission task
A survey of the 2000 BFM
Baptists, the Bible and confessions
Southern Seminary and the Abstract of Principles
An Open Letter to Southern Baptists
A Statement About the Baptist Faith & Message
An Example of the Need to Change The BFM
Incredible Vanishing Corporations
Committee on Cooperation - Report and Findings
An Open Letter from Dr. Allen to Dr. Wade
Why Cooperate?
The Southern Baptist Convention is Alive and Well
Letter by SBCEC President to TX Church Leaders
  Home > Reports, Articles & Papers
Selected Quote

"There should be an 'Abstract of Principles', or careful statement of theological belief, which every professor in such an institution must sign when inaugurated, so as to guard against the rise of erroneous and injurious instruction in such a seat of sacred learning."

James P. Boyce
from "Three Changes in
Theological Institutions"
- summarized by John Broadus, 1856

Letter by SBC Executive Committee President & CEO Morris H. Chapman to Dr. James L. Hill
by Morris H. Chapman
January 25, 2002

Dr. James L. Hill
Jefferson City, MO

Dear Jim:

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I appreciated getting to visit with you by phone last week (January 14, 2002) when you called. Since our conversation, I have given time, thought, and prayer to the appropriate answer to your request that the proposed new state Baptist convention in Missouri be permitted, on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention, to collect Cooperative Program gifts from Southern Baptist churches in Missouri.

Granting the permission you requested would afford the new "Baptist Convention of Missouri" the same status as the existing Missouri Baptist Convention in relating to the Southern Baptist Convention. While I appreciate your desire to associate this new group with the SBC, it is not enough that a group of Baptist individuals or churches creates a "Baptist state convention." The SBC must believe its interests will be served before it agrees to a relationship as serious as that between a regional body and itself. The matter is so very important that it demands a rather lengthy reply.

The regular practice of the Southern Baptist Convention is to be in a relationship with a single Baptist convention for each state or designated geographical region. A state convention is to be in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention. The term "friendly cooperation" includes the promotion of the vision, missions, and ministries of the SBC as well as the collection of Cooperative Program receipts for the SBC from churches in that area. As stated by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1928:

1. The cooperative relations between this Convention and state bodies as now established are limited to the one matter of collecting funds for southwide and state objects in conjunction with a unified appeal for the objects. The state convention boards are at present recognized by this Convention as collecting agencies for Southwide as well as for state funds. This arrangement, however, is not an essential in Baptist organization, but is made simply as a matter of convenience and economy, and may be changed at any time.

2. The fact that the state bodies first handle the funds and are more directly related to the churches in the matter of collections does not alter the basic relations involved. For the practical ends in view this Convention cooperates in the unified appeal for funds through state agencies. But in principle it retains as inalienable and inherent the right to direct appeal to the churches. Furthermore, in all matters other than money raising it retains complete control of its own affairs, with the right to fix its own objectives and to determine the amounts of money allocated to its various objects. -"RELATION OF SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION TO OTHER BAPTIST BODIES" (1928 SBC Annual, pp. 32-33).

Several assumptions underlie our regular practice:

1. The prerogative of the SBC is to decide who will represent its interests to the churches and collect its contributions.
2. A single state Baptist convention per area is the ideal and best serves the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention for the collection of funds and other cooperative functions.
3. The expectation is that any state convention acting as collection agent for the Southern Baptist Convention will vigorously promote the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention and encourage churches to give undesignated gifts through the Cooperative Program exclusively for the state convention and the SBC.
4. There should be a compelling reason to vary from the status quo.

With this background, how does the proposed new convention measure up to our historic practice and our operating assumptions? The following is my understanding of the situation in Missouri with regard to forming a second state convention:

1. The SBC already has a relationship with a state convention in Missouri. 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.
2. The Missouri Baptist Convention is in friendly cooperation with the work and purposes of the Southern Baptist Convention. We categorically disagree with your characterizations of the people who are now giving leadership to the Missouri Baptist Convention. Those characterizations (according to your open letter entitled "Why would I choose to become a part of a new Baptist convention in Missouri?") form your rationale for beginning a new convention. Many of the current leaders in the Missouri Baptist Convention are elected leaders in the SBC. They are faithfully supporting and leading their churches to support the Southern Baptist Convention. They desire the Missouri Baptist Convention remain a loyal, committed partner in SBC missions. It is our understanding 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. This anti-SBC sentiment formerly being promulgated in the MBC was one of the stated reasons many in Missouri worked for the changes in leadership that have taken place.
3. The proposed Baptist Convention of Missouri plans to incorporate practices contrary to the best interests of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is apparent from information from your group as well as the practice of some of the leaders in your group that you intend to create several giving tracks, some of which do not benefit the SBC. We have not nor do we desire to enter into new relationships that do not see the SBC as the exclusive beneficiary of national Cooperative Program gifts from the churches. You also will openly welcome relationships with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group known for actively encouraging Southern Baptist churches to discontinue support for our convention's work. The Southern Baptist Convention would be harmed by these practices.
4. A Southern Baptist Convention partnership with the Baptist Convention of Missouri would tend to confuse the churches and complicate their financial support of the SBC. The Missouri churches do not need another avenue for getting their support to the SBC. If they are truly desirous of supporting the SBC, the MBC can forward their gifts for the SBC as it has for years. We believe the Southern Baptist churches in Missouri ought to be encouraged to continue to work with the MBC. They will find many opportunities to work together for the Lord. Furthermore, if some churches do not want to send their CP gifts through the MBC, they can send it directly to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Jim, yours is the first-ever request for affiliation we have had from a group of Baptists with 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.

Therefore, I must inform you that I find no compelling reason to vary from the status quo. 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. It will be necessary for us to return any such gifts from the convention you plan to form and request the Southern Baptist churches in Missouri to send their gifts through regular channels. I am saddened by your personal conflicts with MBC leaders and I regret that the disharmony remains at a high level in the state, but the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention will not be served by establishing a partnership with another regional convention in Missouri.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Morris H. Chapman

Back to Top of PageBack to Top
Print PagePrinter Friendly version

Copyright © 1999-2024, Southern Baptist Convention.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
Website Comments?