The Rev. C. Joshua Villines

Atlanta, GA

October 4, 2001

Dr. William T. Neal
The Christian Index
1585 South Ponce de Leon Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30307

 Dear Dr. Neal:

I am saddened and embarrassed that as a Georgia Baptist pastor I used to defend the Georgia Baptist Convention.  Time and again I would explain to friends that the GBC was not synonymous with the SBC; and that baptist churches in Georgia could voluntarily associate with each other through the GBC regardless of their national affiliation(s).  Apparently I was very wrong.

A friend recently gave me a copy of a letter signed by the Rev. Dr. J. Robert White, the current Executive Director of the GBC.  The letter outlines the official policies for Georgia Baptist groups which wish to use facilities that are owned by their state convention.  Every baptist, regardless of where they stand on the current political controversies, should be horrified by the reprehensible and un-baptist theology represented in these policies.

One of the most odious of those restrictions, particularly among baptists who have championed soul freedom, is the statement that those present can make “no negative remarks about the GBC or SBC.”  In other words, baptists are allowed to use the facilities they paid for only if they are not going to criticize, evaluate, or reflect upon the organizations of which they are members.  This sort of thought policing is the hallmark of repressive, third world governments; not self-perpetuating, self-funded, member-led baptist groups.

White also stipulates that there can be no “promotion of women as senior pastors” since it would be a “frontal attack” on the SBC and GBC.  Supporters of the 2000 BF&M were right.  It is apparently not a creed. It is something worse.  It is a political manifesto of such power and authority that baptists are not free to use their own facilities to critique it or disagree with it.  Heil White!

White adds that there can be no “mentioning” of the CBF or “tone of sympathy or general support of CBF.”  Apparently, he is unaware that membership in the CBF does not preclude membership in the GBC; and that a church does not have to support the SBC to be a member of the GBC.  With Whit’s policy, though, CBF-only churches are second-class citizens within the Georgia Baptist Convention, since they cannot even discuss their national affiliation on Georgia Baptist property.

Finally, White makes it clear that in GBC facilities there can be no “strange communication about ‘Mother God,’ ‘Goddess Sophia,’ or any such thing;” and also says that he finds it “difficult to believe that anyone from our tradition would refer to ‘Mother God’…”  Perhaps White is not speaking of the Christian tradition, which includes Genesis 1:27 in its canon of Scripture.  Consistent with that and other passages, praying to God as Mother and Father has been a legitimate form of orthodox Christian worship for centuries.

Somehow, though, Dr. White has gotten the impression that he has the authority to tell baptists how they can relate to God at the conference center they paid for.  In addition, he feels that the Baptist Faith and Message gives him the right to squelch any debate or criticism (even by GBC members) on GBC property.  Ironically denominations which are actual denominations and have a strict, top-down, theocratic hierarchy in place would not go so far as to completely squelch free debate among their members.  Yet White, who is the head of a cooperative body of independent congregations, feels that he has a mandate to do just that.

Conservative or liberal; SBC, CBF, or Alliance; being baptist means recognizing that we are a diverse group called to cooperation through our common membership in the Body of Christ.  If our cooperative organizations are so frail that they cannot survive free and open discussion, then their very fragility proves that they are neither baptist nor holy.