By Bill Webb
Word&Way Editor
The question going into last week's Missouri Baptist Convention annual meeting in Springfield probably was not whether messengers would approve new single 
alignment language upon second reading. The only question was by what margin and perhaps whether or not messengers would again find the discussion confusing.
The two previous years, this issue had come to the convention floor out of the Committee on Continuing Review. And the two previous presentations by two different chairs of the committee left many messengers frustrated and confused. Rumors circulated through the year that some leaders preferred to let the matter lie without consideration this year.
MBC leaders led a concerted effort during the past year to persuade Missouri Baptists that the measure was a good thing and not something to be feared. An MBC-produced question-and-answer document was posted on the MBC Web site shortly after the 2004 annual meeting. It found its way into a full-color brochure given to each attendee at last week's meeting.
This year, the presentation by new committee chair, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice John Holstein, calmed the atmosphere on the meeting floor.
After limited discussion that included a strong objection by Greene County Baptist Association director of missions Michael Haynes, the measure carried overwhelmingly.
What do the changes mean?
Now the question being asked across the state is: Exactly what do these changes actually mean?
MBC has had a single alignment clause for many years now. However, new language tightens single-alignment restrictions. In many ways, the new language is less subject to interpretation.
In the past, the clause primarily played out in the seating of messengers to the annual meeting. Anyone could raise a challenge regarding any church and its messengers on the basis of single alignment. Single alignment traditionally meant that an MBC church could not have multiple relationships with national conventions, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and American Baptists USA, for instance.
In recent years, single alignment has been interpreted to mean that an MBC church had to be affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. For instance, a congregation could not simply choose affiliation with a local association and the MBC and not the SBC. In other words, some interpreted the clause as saying that without SBC affiliation, there can be no MBC affiliation.
Credentials Committee changes
Convention action last week changed the Credentials Committee from a convention committee that functions in conjunction with the three-day annual meeting to a standing MBC committee.
What's the difference?
Now this committee will be on standby to field concerns about specific churches, but it also will have authority to act on its own suspicions to root out alleged violators of its new relationship clause. The issue is no longer a matter of the ability to seat messengers for the annual meeting but actual affiliation with the Missouri Baptist Convention and participation in its ministries.
The operative verb in the committee's new job description is "investigate." The convention grants that power to the committee, whether it involves an affiliated church or a member of one of those churches. Unfortunately, in times such as these, there is no shortage of brethren — or sisters — willing to assist in weeding out the perceived tares in the fellowship.
That methodology has been perfected in recent Missouri Baptist life, and in a very highly organized fashion. I fear that many Missouri Baptists will be more than willing to lend their services to this kind of endeavor.
Alas, last week's action perpetuates suspicion among the ranks of Missouri Baptists, and it has the potential to raise to a new level unilateral mistrust among congregations and individual Baptists who have traditionally affiliated with one another on the basis of mutual trust.
Those who have championed the new language and the new mechanism for ensuring compliance say it will further purify the ranks of Missouri Baptists, eliminating congregations and their members who are out of step theologically, doctrinally and morally. They say the Missouri Baptist Convention will be all the better for it.
How will congregations respond?
That begs another question: How will churches respond?
• Some congregations will embrace this approach to running a state convention as long overdue. Perhaps they have withheld their participation until such a time as this.
• Some congregations will simply walk away, figuring they have already been unilaterally disqualified from participation by definition. If the church has given support to other "competing" groups such as the Baptist General Convention of Missouri or the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, or perhaps sent representatives to one of those groups, it need only look at the newly revised MBC Constitution to discover that it is violating the new rules of affiliation.
• Some congregations will be investigated by the MBC's Credentials Committee, perhaps asked questions about their finances and their affiliations. They will either pass or fail the MBC litmus test for cooperation and affiliation.
• Some who have no reason to fear being ousted by the state convention may find themselves less than enamoured by the whole concept of a policing committee. They will walk away — quickly.
• Some churches will find themselves drifting away from involvement in state convention life, but not necessarily drifting to any other organized entity of Baptists, at least not for the time being.
A few more thoughts
Messengers to state convention annual meetings can do whatever they like. The convention is, after all, autonomous. They determine their rules of participation, set their own budgets, include who they want and exclude whomever they will. They have the right and the power to do what the majority decides. In this case, a decision has been made on the basis of a significant majority of messengers present and voting.
In Baptist life, congregations are autonomous, too. Most strive to be the people of God in their setting, engaging the people in their community with the good news of a relationship with Jesus Christ and developing relationships to enhance their ministries. In Baptist life, the local church should enjoy the highest level of autonomy. Other Baptist entities should be wary of trumping the autonomy of local churches.
Single alignment is a case in point. To arbitrarily make a congregation cut off other relationships for the privilege of associating exclusively with the Missouri Baptist Convention relieves the local church of a huge chunk of its autonomy. To deny a congregation fellowship unless it cuts off fellowship with other Baptists — or other Christians — strikes me as counter to the unifying power of the Holy Spirit.
It should not take long for Missouri Baptists to realize that this recent action was not one of our wisest decisions.
