Biblical Recorder
  • HOME
  • SUBSCRIBE NOW
  • ADVERTISE
  • DONATE
  • RSS
SEARCH FOR  
Photo GalleryVideo Library
News Spoke'n Tar Heel Voices Guest Columns Editorials


Classifieds About Us Other Resources
Seach The Bible
Sunday Schools Lessons

Option vote kicks air from committee’s lungs

Email Print
Clock 12. November 2008 by Norman Jameson, BR editor

That hissing sound you hear is air whooshing from the lungs of members of the Giving Plans Study Committee—and the 45 percent of messengers who supported their proposal to adopt a single giving plan, with options.

The other 55 percent of messengers said clearly they do not want the option of allowing churches to pass money to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship through the Baptist State Convention giving avenue.  That opinion prevailed despite the blanket support of the Baptist State Convention Executive Committee, the full Board of Directors, BSC leadership and a widely diverse study committee.

The 2008 annual meeting of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina has just finished and after three days of inflating the Special Events Center in Greensboro with an international missionary commissioning; hundreds flooding the altar after the president’s sermon; smooth sailing on complicated business matters; creative and inspiring missions presentations and worship times that lifted the roof in prayer and praise the air went out at the end.

Nearly 900 attended the Wednesday morning session, a larger group than is typical lately. Total messenger count for the week was 2,131 at 9 a.m., but as usual, nearly two-thirds had important engagements elsewhere on Wednesday morning.

Until Vic Ramsey of Moyock Baptist Church tried to amend the NCMO allocations presented by Budget Committee Chairman Steve Hardy there not only had not been a single ballot vote, not a single messenger had stepped up to use a floor microphone.

Ed Yount’s response to a disappointing result was palpable, polite and politic. His group worked a year on this. I’m never one to commend an idea or a product just because those who produced it “worked hard,” but at every turn once the plan had been finalized Yount emphasized over and over again how every meeting and decision had been bathed in prayer.

They did not come lightly to this recommendation.

Allan Blume, president of the Board and pastor of Mount Vernon Baptist Church, created a dream team committee. When he solicited members he told the candidates that they would be on a committee with people they probably won’t see eye to eye with.

C.J. Bordeaux said as much in speaking against the amendment that cut most of the strength out of the plan. Some committee members would never ask him to preach a revival meeting in their churches. But the newly blossomed Christian camaraderie of this diverse committee was evident.

Steve Reeves, retired pastor of Iotla Baptist Church in Franklin, told me the committee meetings were like talking to a friendly neighbor over the back fence. While they approached the initial meeting without knowing each other except by reputation, they soon learned that diversity is a positive characteristic in a body of believers.

Now, the majority of North Carolina Baptists meeting in annual session, flatly declare diversity is overrated, tolerance is not to be tolerated and it is better to be smaller and more narrowly defined as a convention, than it is to work side by side in mission with fellow Christians who share our Baptist DNA. Of course, the side by side part is a problem, according to Matt Williamson, who made the motion to delete the CBF giving option.

If BSC and CBF volunteers are working side by side and a person is won to Christ, “which church do we send the convert to?” he asked. “A CBF church or one of our own?”

For those of you who wonder why in the world it would matter, he is of course referring to CBF being soft on inerrancy and Williamson said while some hills are not worth dying for, he “will certainly die on the hill of inerrancy of scripture.”

This was no line in the sand today. It was a line drawn in wet cement. And it’s official. While most—hopefully all—of you have friends who do not agree with you at every point, we have circumscribed our Baptist compound with “keep out” signs.

Categories: Editor's Journal
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments Comments (21) | RSS Post RSS

Comments

Person
Christopher
You're correct. If the messengers want homogeneous churches and a homogeneous convention, they will soon find themselves in an empty room...

posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:37 PM | Report Abuse
Person
DC
No so fast. What you seemed to have described is a bunch of Baptists being Baptists and voting their convictions, providing a result we all should accept as "the will of the people" (even if not "the will of God"). I don't see how you can be so inclusive ("let's all get along even if your side lost") regarding the election of Barack Obama (52% to 46%) yet so exclusive ("everyone who didn't vote the 'right' way on this issue has posted 'keep out' signs") on the adoption of this proposal (55% to 45%). Can you have it both ways? (We all know from experience that it's a whole lot easier to be philosophical when your your side wins!)

Actually, what you seem to be lamenting in this instance is the absence of a hierarchical, non-Baptist decision by a more informed leadership than entrusting the outcome to a bunch of ignorant Baptists. Ironic, huh?

If it's any consolation, the decision is probably a good case of change leadership. My guess is the reason the committee et. al. got along so well and came to what appears to be a reasonable conclusion is they had lots of time rubbing elbows, discussing the issues, and seeing things from the other side's point of view. That wasn't the case for the messengers in the room, so I'm really not surprised at the seeming disconnect between the more informed leadership and the not-so-informed rank and file. Just a thought.

posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:20 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Norman
Very well said, DC. The opportunity for people to rub elbows will always lower the demonization quotient between them. Two questions for BSC staff leadership to ponder are: "Would the option have passed if they had risked some political marbles to speak out for it?" and, "What is the ramification long term when thoughtful, informed, bipartisan leadership arrives at a prayerful conclusion that is consequently rejected by a majority of constituents?"

posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:40 AM | Report Abuse
Person
Artist28269
Fundamentalism is repeatedly predictable. The ensmallment of Baptist life continues.

posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Report Abuse
Person
Norman
If churches which accommodate differing perspectives of members are forced to choose one method through which to support missions, it is unlikely they will choose the organization that forced the choice.

posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Edgar
Well, let us see where we now stand. We have recently seen the WMU NC be forced, yes I said forced, to withdraw from the Baptist Building in light of the demands from Rev. Hollifield that they submit to his/their quest for hiring and firing power over them. We have now seen the messengers to the Baptist State Convention vote in a small number to diallow churches, which previously had been free in the Baptist and New Testament sense of the word, from sending a part of their mission money to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship while also sending more money to the Baptist State Convention. What do these things tell us about the "spiritual condition" of a conservative/fundamentalist segment of the Baptist State Convention and its leaders? I would suggest that these actions suggest that some have become lustful for power and control even if it serves as a offense to their fellow Christian. I would also suggest that these actions speak volumes about the real conflict which is between those seeking power and control and the Jesus who died for all and whom they claim to represent. Did Jesus not teach us that power and greed were comon among the Gentiles but were not to be found among his followers? Did Jesus also not teach us that the greatest in the Kingdom of God would be the servant of all? (Mark 10:35-45) Where is Christ-like servanthood in modern Baptist life? Strangely missing!! As Gomer Pyle woul;d say: Shame, Shame, Shame!!


posted Friday, November 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Chris
Funny to me how we should be tolerant of everyone but those who not tolerant! The CBF does not believe in Biblical Inerrancy, the issue of qualified ministers, and affirms homosexuals thru its policies. To say that we are intolerant because we don't want to throw up our hands and say as long as Jesus is preached who cares? That is not intolerant, it is teaching the whole counsel of God and not just the "good stuff". The CBF choose to break away and so did the WMU. When they made these decisions they should not still expect Baptist Money. They broke away, at least the CBF, because they desired different doctrinal stances---thats their right, but why should the BSC continue to fund them? Why would anyone fund people who don't teach and believe the whole Bible?

posted Friday, November 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Big Man
Well Edgar, Maybe Gomer ought to say: "Just the facts, Just the facts, Just the facts."
Fact number one, no one forced the WMU out of the building. They chose to leave. Just like I did when I got married and became indendpent. I wanted to be on my own. Therefore, I had no right to expect my parents to continue to pay the bills because I made the choice to leave.
Fact number two, the policy with regard to the Executive Director having some input in the hiring policy was already a part of the process. Because previous leadership did not exercise it does not allow it to be used as an excuse nor does it makes Rev. Hollified a villian because he did. Perhaps all of us as individuals, organizations, agencies,schools or groups need to simply be reminded there are consequences to every choice. Make them wisely !!!!!

posted Friday, November 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Edgar
From the continuing comments by Chris and Big Man above, it appears overwhelmingly obvious to me that they just do not get it. First, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is NOT being funded by the Baptist State Convention much less by the SBC. It is funded by the offerings of members in some churches who long for an alternative to the rigid and marrow minded rules and regulations of the "conservative resurgence" which is really the fundamentalist takeover. I remember when the fundamentalists first started their takeoever their cry was for parity and representation of their views in Baptist life. Well after many years of fighting where is the parity and the non-fundamentalist viewpoint now? Secondly, the CBF is NOT carrying the gay agenda. Thirdly, I find it a strange use of code words to talk about "qualified ministers" which I guess is a reference to women in ministry. There again the fundamentalists are is disagreement with the Bible when it says that Phoebe was a deacon in Romans 16. There is no feminine form of deacon in Greek, in addition they miss Galatians 3:28 where Paul says we are all one. NOt to mention that Isaiah's wife was called a prophetess. As to the WMU there would not have been a problem without the chronies trying to rule over this like the Gentiles do. I still say the conservatives are in strong disagreement with Jesus the Risen Lord!!

posted Friday, November 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Report Abuse
Person
vicramz
Regarding the WMU, it's clear to me that they saw themselves as an autonomous Baptist body appropriately defending that autonomy by refusing to submit its hiring decisions to outside review. In this sense, they are no different than the associations.

To be fair, there was a conflict between that autonomy on the one hand, and having WMU staff enrolled in the convention's payroll and benefits system on the other. WMU resolved that conflict by having its staff resign from convention employment and by setting up its own payroll and benefits system.

This step should have ended the crisis. The confusion over the status of WMU staff was over.

But this wasn't the way the convention leadership wanted the confusion resolved. For reasons that are obscure to me, they wanted the WMU to be a subdivision of the convention staff.

The convention leadership insisted that the WMU staff, if no longer convention employees, vacate the convention building. Had the convention leadership wanted to do business with WMU, it would have been easy to work out a suitable rental agreement for office space in the convention building. But they didn't want to.

Then, when the WMU agreed to vacate the building rather than yield their autonomy, the Budget Committee responded by cutting off their NCMO funding. Again, if the convention leadership wanted to work with WMU, they could have continued to fund WMU through the NCMO just as they do the associations.

Yes, WMU takes up a state-wide offering. But only because the BSC cut them out of the NCMO in the first place!

Moreover, each association does make direct appeals for support from its member churches, and each receives NCMO funds only from those very same churches. This happens in every association, so it's essentially a state-wide practice.

To use the Heck-Jones Offering, (which the convention leadership itself authorized!) as a way to say that the WMU's situation is different from the associations is . . . well . . . curious.

As for the governing documents, the bylaw amendments adopted on Tuesday describe the relationship between the convention and the associational missions conference as "a fraternal, voluntary relationship under which each is autonomous in governance." Sounds to me that's exactly what the WMU wanted.

Again, I reiterate, there's no difference between the associations and the WMU, except that, for some reason, the convention leadership just doesn't want to work with an autonomous WMU. It's just that simple.

As for the associations, here's a question: How long before somebody notices that many associations have CBF churches as members? How long before someone stands on the convention floor and moves that no association with a CBF-affiliated church in its membership may receive Cooperative Program funds?

You see, the associations aren't any different from the WMU. And they aren't safe, either. They're just next.

posted Friday, November 14, 2008 10:07 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Brent Hobbs
I have mixed emotions about the vote. On one hand, I am happy to distance myself as far as possible from the CBF. On the other hand, I liked the solution the committee proposed as well, in the spirit of cooperation. I probably would have voted against the amendment, but I'm not upset the convention decided to clearly take a stand on the issue.

posted Sunday, November 16, 2008 7:04 PM | Report Abuse
Person
cj
Just as the associations will be next, so will Baptist Men. Many of their projects and volunteers come from CBF churches.

posted Monday, November 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Report Abuse
Person
Edgar
I wonder what those who are so determined to have no association whatsoever with anyone connected with CBF will do when they get to heaven only to discover that there are CBFers as well as Christians from all denominations there? Will they choose to leave or try to takeover the Kingdom of God and throw them out? Folks, we need to get REAL and do some serious praying about our attitudes towards others.

posted Monday, November 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Tony
You said,

"While most—hopefully all—of you have friends who do not agree with you at every point, we have circumscribed our Baptist compound with “keep out” signs."

If I know Scripture at all, it seems there are harsher words for porfessing bleievers who stray from truth than for those without Christ. We can not compromise truth, particularly those truths as foundational as inerrancy. I might add, the modern liberal "church's" problmeatic stand on homosexuality is but the inerrancy issue revisited in differetn garb. It is the refusal of some within christendom to accept the Bible's authority on matters even as foundational as sexuality and marriage.

Tony

posted Monday, November 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Norman
The kibbles and bits discussion of the Bible's fine points is totally irrelevant to 99.9 percent of the world, and 100 percent of the lost. While Baptists compare navels to decide who is an innie and who is an outie and who has the best boat in which to rescue the perishing, the perishing simply drown. It is not a resolution between Baptists of an inerrant Bible position that will pull them to the surface, it is a Christian who acts on all the Bible he or shee knows and holds the hand of another Christian while reaching into the water to grasp the hand of the drowning.


posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:21 AM | Report Abuse
Person
Brian
I have to ask the question to all who have made comment on this issue, what would happen if we quit magnifying how we give our missions dollars and put the spotlight on Jesus? Another question I have always wanted to ask, If churches in our convention want their dollars to go to the CBF why don't they just send them directly to the CBF? Is it simply so they can have "voting privileges" and the ability to send messengers to a Convention that they clearly do not align themselves with? I want to personally thank Milton Hollifield for his Bold, Visionary, Courageous, and Focused leadership of our State Convention. I walked away from our Convention saying that this was the best one I have ever attended. As one of the "young leaders" in our state I count it a privilege to serve in a church that has the same heartbeat as our State Convention and I am excited about being a part of the movement of God among NC Baptists.

posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:44 AM | Report Abuse
Person
Tony
Norman Said: The kibbles and bits discussion of the Bible's fine points is totally irrelevant to 99.9 percent of the world, and 100 percent of the lost. While Baptists compare navels to decide who is an innie and who is an outie and who has the best boat in which to rescue the perishing, the perishing simply drown. It is not a resolution between Baptists of an inerrant Bible position that will pull them to the surface, it is a Christian who acts on all the Bible he or shee knows and holds the hand of another Christian while reaching into the water to grasp the hand of the drowning.

Norman,
Love your analogies. You have a gift for EFFECTIVE words. As far as the inerrancy thing, I'd like to know that the "life preserver" I am tossing to the lost is actually a life preserver and not an iron donut. An appeal to a bible that we aren't sure is accurate in observational matters sounds a little uncertain and possibly dangerous. If it errs in matters we can investigate how in "this" world can we ever be certain that it doesn't err in matters beyond the grave. Can't say that with any actual certainty witout inerrancy.

Just a thought. Again, good analogies.

Tony



posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Report Abuse
Person
chadwick
Norman & Tony,

You two crack me up with your 'unbiased' rhetoric!!! Laughing

If the vote would have been in your favor, you two would have been touting to the 'minority,' "SEE HERE! The BoD's, GPSC, and the majority of the autonomous messengers have spoken! YES! THEY! DID!"

Your 'unbiased' voices remind me of the 'unbiasedness' of the mainstream media's opinion of the 2000, 2004, & 2008 presidential election outcomes:

2000- Bush beat Gore; the media cried, "The Country is divided! . . . NO! WE! CAN'T!"

2004- Bush beat Kerry; the media cried out, "The Country is divided!. . . NO! WE! CAN'T"

2008- Obama beat McCain; the media cried out, "The Country has spoken! . . . YES! WE! CAN!"

Regardless of the outcome, the autonomous messengers, from the autonomous churches, who form the autonomous convention, who chose to stay, cast their ballots!

Regardless of the outcome, democracy prevailed; autonomy was preserved; the majority (of those present) had spoken; case closed! YES! THEY! DID!


Unbiasedly & Autonomously Yours, ;)
chadwick

posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:40 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Tony
chadwick said:"You two crack me up with your 'unbiased' rhetoric!!!"

Hello Chadwick.

Unbiased? hardly! You might get a good taste of tolerance and intolerance in the same blog. I toerate a fellow human being because he is creted inthe image of God. I will not tolerate any theaching hta timpugns Scritpure. Take note. We can argue the issue wihtout calling each other a bunch of names. (at least so far)

I made my very biased point, with "intolerable" tact perhaps; but I made it nonetheless. Inerrancy is the only gurarantee that we have that everything concerning God, salvation, heaven, hell and things in the afterlife are exactly like the Bible says they are.

Just a fact! There, is that better than, "just a tought."





posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:15 AM | Report Abuse
Person
chadwick
Tony,

Sorry, I typed before I thought; I meant for my comment to go to Norman concerning his 'unbiased' article. Laughing

Therefore, my previous comment is addressed to Norman only.

chadwick

posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Report Abuse
Person
Tony
No problem man,

Tony

posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:18 PM | Report Abuse

Post A Comment Post A Comment

Comments are closed
  • Archives
  • Feedback
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ/Help
  • Privacy
  • Terms & Conditions
© 2008 Biblical Recorder. All Rights Reserved.
BP Studios