Header image alt text

Southern Baptist in NC

Keeping Christ central in the world of Southern Baptists

Nov 07

14

Baptist State Convention of North Carolina–Convention Wrap-up

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 14, 2007
Posted in Baptist Retirement Homes of North Carolina • Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Children Homes of North Carolina • Milton Hollifield • North Carolina Baptist Men • Southern Baptist Convention • Women's Missionary Union of North Carolina  | 10 Comments

The closing gavel has fallen on the one-hundred and seventy-seventh session of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. It was a great time to see people and spend some time with those that I have not seen in the past year. I was able to see others that I have not seen in over four or five years. This year it was a bitter sweet time as I traversed the hallway between the convention session and the exhibit area. It was a bitter time as I heard less than edifying comments being made from messengers on both sides of the issues. As I walked and heard the various comments, I was reminded of what my Mother has told me since I was old enough to understand; “if you cannot say something good about someone, then do not say anything at all.” It was a sweet time in that I was able to visit with many that have made an impact in my life.

In this post, it is my desire to give the facts but not say anything negative about the personalities. I will give my opinion about the major issues that came before us and then present my opinion for how the issues affect the future of the BSCNC.

The Issues That Came Before Us

The convention dealt with four divisive issues. Tuesday morning the convention heard an appeal from Myers Park Baptist Church in a request to seat her messengers. In this appeal MPBC placed their Lesbian Deacon before the messengers and she appealed to John 3:16 as she argued for inclusion. The messengers listened to the appeal from this deacon and her Pastor. When it came time to respond from the convention floor the messengers stepped to the microphone and graciously responded. Brother David Martin from First Baptist Cary lovingly and passionately pleaded the case for repentance and becoming a new creature. Never condemning this precious lady, but openly admonishing her to repent from her lifestyle. There was one messenger from First Baptist Greensboro that appealed to the convention to allow MPBC to be seated. When the vote was taken the appeal was defeated by an overwhelming majority.

The Baptist college and universities study committee report came after this MPBC vote. While it was divisive, this report passed. One other thing that was different but pertained to the college and universities, concerned Wingate University. Wingate University chose to recommend their own trustees to the convention this year. They chose to fill 9 trustee slots and presented a list of 11 names. Nine would be presented to the convention along with two alternates. One of the alternates presented was a Resa Harris from Myers Park Baptist Church. The person making the recommendation from Wingate stated that this was a non-issue because this person was presented as an alternate in the case something happens to another trustee. Much discussion followed this asking for clarification. It never was clearly identified that this person would not serve.

Wednesday morning brought with it two more issues that were divisive. These issues brought with it a passion that is close to home for everyone. The first issue that gained our attention on Wednesday morning was the Baptist Retirement Homes Study Committee Report. After the Study Committee officially released the report to the convention it was requested that a representative from the BRH speak to the convention about the report. No one came to any of the microphones. Opportunities were presented to the BRH to speak and once again before any messenger was allowed to speak for or against the report. Thus, the BRH had ample opportunity to speak to this report. In this report, it was recommended that we release the 2007 escrowed funds. This recommendation was amended from the floor that in essence called for the BRH to return to the table and if they did not come back to work with us, then the funds would not be released. This amendment passed by a large majority and we moved on to the Budget Committee Report.

The Budget Committee Report was presented and the main focus was the North Carolina Missions Offering. In this offering in the past the Womens Missionary Union of North Carolina received the largest portion of the offering at 33%. This amounts to nearly $900k of a $2.5 million offering. This year the offering was set at $2 million and the WMU-NC was excluded. The BSCNC Board of Directors approved, in their October 29, 2007 called meeting to remove WMU-NC from the NCMO and and allow WMU-NC to promote an annual offering solely for themselves. Many in the leadership and others connected with WMU-NC were not happy about this move and mounted a propaganda campaign on Tuesday. As I entered the convention hall on Tuesday afternoon I was presented with a pamplet from a person saying he was representing Friends of the WMU. In this pamplet there were many half-truths presented and really stirred up the ire of some conservatives. As reported on this blog, there was a motion made to return the WMU-NC to the NCMO. Dr. Roy Smith, former Executive Director/Treasurer stepped up to the microphone and amended the budget report to increase the NCMO by $500k and for this amount to go to the WMU-NC. After a passionate debate on this amendment from both sides the amendment failed.

Highlights of the Convention

The messages at this year’s convention were phenomenal. It seemed that God had His special anointing on our speakers this year like never before. Monday evening began with a sermon from Dr. Jim Henry, former Pastor of First Baptist Orlando and President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Henry is currently Interim Pastor at Biltmore Baptist Church in Asheville, NC. I believe, but I have not verified, that Dr. Henry has retired to the North Carolina Mountains. I do know that this is his second Interim Pastorate in North Carolina. I do not believe that NC Churches are flying him back and forth in order for him to do interim work. However, Dr. Henry gave a challenging message on unity. Tuesday morning Brother Milton Hollifield gave his ExD/T address and did he knock it out of the park. His call to the convention for choosing your loyalties was a message that should have been heard many years ago. He unashamedly stood before the messengers and presented a challenge for us as we move into the future. Then Dr. Stan Welch gave his final Presidents address. He challenged us to be fishing and not only to fish but to learn how to fish. I am going to miss Dr. Welch’s leadership. But, the message of messages was Dr. Mark Harris. Dr. Harris is currently serving as Senior Pastor of First Baptist Charlotte. Brother Mark took his text from Nehemiah and challenged NC Baptist to rebuild the walls. Brother Mark observed that we needed to rebuild the walls that have been broken down in NC Baptist life. Brother Mark called us to the rebuilding of the walls of consecration and then did something that has never been done in the 177 year history of our convention. He gave an altar call. Many responded committing to the future of the BSCNC and it was the talk of the convention on Wednesday. What a great time of worship.

The officer elections was a time of zero controversy. On Tuesday morning we had the Presidental election and Dr. Rick Speas, who served as our 1VP and is Senior Pastor of Oldtowne Baptist Church in Winston Salem, was elected without opposition. I went to school with Brother Rick at SEBTS and have seen God use him throughout his time here in NC. I believe he will make a great President and look forward to his leadership. Then Dr. Leland Kerr, currently the Director of Missions for the Wilmington Association and serving as 2VP was nominated and elected to the office of 1VP. After that Dr. Phil Ortega, Senior Pastor of Scotts Hills Baptist Church in Wilmington was elected to serve as our 2VP. The Recording Secretary nominated and elected was Rev. Tim Lowry, Senior Pastor of Balfour Baptist Church in Asheboro. The only challenge race that had to be balloted in the officers election was that of Assistant Recording Secretary.

Seeing Brothers and Sisters that you have not seen was a grand highlight. I met Brother Benji Ramsuer for the first time. I knew his Dad and Mom as his Dad used to be Pastor of a neighboring church. However, I never met Brother Benji. Brother Benji and I had an enjoyable time of raggin on each other and I surprised him by my statement about a slight move in my theology. He responded that there may yet be hope for me. From there I was able to introduce him to Brother Les Puryear. Brother Les and his lovely wife Debbie were worn out this year as they kept vigil at the Small Church Impact booth in the exhibit area. I also introduced Brother Les to a person that I know personally and have worked with in the past. This person would be a huge asset to small church pastors and I do pray that Brother Les and he could work out a way for his services to be offered at the Small Church Impact Conference.

What do I see as the future of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina? I see a bright future. Our Baptist Children’s Homes are doing outstanding jobs. Our Missions outreach is one of phenomenal growth. When I arrived home today my mail contained an envelope from Baptist Men. There are thirteen, count them, 13 various Missions opportunities for churches to participate. If you desire to do missions the BSCNC has made it available. Also, we are planning a state-wide event called Operation Inasmuch. This event will be a local missions outreach endeavor for the local church. If all of the churches in NC will participate in this event, can you imagine the impact for the cause of Christ? Our church planting is increasing like never before. I believe the BSCNC will see her best days.

The doom and gloom that some will present is to be expected. However, I believe that the BSCNC will prosper with the good Hand of God leading her as we reach a lost and dying world.

Digg ThisShare via email

Nov 07

7

URGENT–STAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY BUDGET SESSION!!

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 7, 2007
Posted in Baptist Retirement Homes of North Carolina • Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Conservative Carolina Baptist • Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina 

I received this information in an email and you need to know that it is reliable information. The person I received this from certainly would know about this political move.

NC Baptists need to know that the WMU will try to reverse the Board’s recent action which excludes them from the NC Mission Offering. THIS WILL TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY MORNING!! In the past conservatives have not been faithful to attend on Wednesday morning and we MUST not let that happen this year!!

To find out about the facts concerning this move and view an accurate account of where we find ourselves you need to click the link provided. Conservative Carolina Baptist. The CBFNC (moderate/liberals) are having a huge gathering on Tuesday evening in an effort to get their messengers in Greensboro to be ready for the Wednesday AM budget presentation. Remember, Baptist Retirement Homes presentation is Wednesday AM too. Get ready, it is going to be an interesting convention to say the least.

Digg ThisShare via email

Nov 07

7

IS IT ALL ABOUT MONEY?

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 7, 2007
Posted in Baptist Retirement Homes of North Carolina • Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Bill Stillerman • Board of Directors • salaries • Stan Welch  | 6 Comments

When I was growing up I remember hearing a debate on the church floor concerning beginning a van ministry. The argument that prevailed was one that broke my Daddy’s heart. An argument was presented that those on the van could not support the church and thus it was not financially feasible to begin such a ministry. The irony of this decision was that the argument presented came from a man that could afford to support the van ministry and never miss the money. Because he was known to be a wealthy person, he had a huge influence over the people in the church. They decided to vote in his favor instead of taking a chance that he would leave the church.

It seems that we find ourselves in a similar position concerning the Baptist Retirement Homes. At the 2006 convention I remember the arguments on the convention floor concerning seniors on fixed incomes having to be put in the street because we were placing funds in escrow. There were two basic flaws in that argument and I could not understand why the messengers did not see them. First, the underlying flaw I observed had to do with the implication that we had people leading the BRH that said they would discontinue service to people and basically place them in the streets if they could not find the resources for these seniors to pay their bill. Second, is the flaw concerning Medicaid. If BRH does not have Medicaid beds then we have other serious issues concerning the Biblical command about feeding the poor. If they do have Medicaid beds then the BRH will be reimbursed by the government for the beds of the poor. These two arguments were completely overlooked when this debate made it to the convention floor. The only argument that prevailed consisted of the convention, by placing funds in escrow, was placing in jeopardy those seniors on fixed incomes. The seniors residing in BRH, according to their own administration, do not need North Carolina Baptist State Convention funds.

This argument came from trustees of the BRH and others that were concerned by this action. Many were certainly arguing from an emotional state. Certainly, no one desires to be responsible for placing our seniors in a precarious position of not having a place to stay. Some argued in favor of releasing one-fourth of the escrowed funds because that was the number of trustees the BRH was choosing. However, what the one arguing this point failed to note for the convention was that the BRH had already voted to choose their own trustees, thus freeing themselves from the BSCNC. Remember that the 2006 convention voted on a slate of trustees for the BRH and these trustees were not allowed to be in the building at the first 2007 BRH trustee meeting to be seated. Therefore, the BRH told the convention they were through with us.

Please note all of the arguments for the BRH making this move is centered completely around money. Because money is the driving factor, one must ask the reason that money seems to be driving this train. Just a small glimpse of the Form 990 that non-profits have to file with the government gives some significant insight. According to page 19 on this form our BRH President received an annual salary of $258k in 2004. By 2004 standards that was a huge salary, but Dr. Stillerman is a man that serves a huge conglomerate and should be compensated accordingly. However, I believe it to be disingenuous to have trustees that he appointed approve that kind of salary when it is coming from Baptist that make no where close to that amount. If the amount of that salary doesn’t concern you wait until you read page 19 on this form. You will find that in 2005 he received a salary increase from $258k to $371k. WHAT? Do not take my word, these forms were filed with the Federal Government–read the 990′s. At $12k per, one could fund 9 new church starts with money left over. Does one man do the work of 9 new church starts? I do not believe so.

Notice a key administrative domino fell in 2005. Some time in 2005 the BRH trustees voted to give President Stillerman a $113k raise. Notice this time-line provided for us by our former Biblical Recorder Editor Dr. Tony Cartledge. You can see the entire article here.

BRH president Bill Stillerman first proposed a new relationship for his institution in August of 2005, arguing that the financial climate requires BRH to have greater control of its own governance. The Executive Committee approved a plan by which BRH would begin to appoint its own trustees and give up all BSC funding over a four-year period. The Executive Committee reversed course the next month after convention attorney John Small reviewed the plan and said it amounted to a severance of relationship. In December 2005, the BRH board voted to change its bylaws and begin appointing its own trustees.

At the convention in November 2006 a committee was appointed by Brother Stan Welch, President of NCSBC to review the relationship and arrive at a consensus. This committee was formed after the BRH trustees voted to make themselves a self-perpetuating board. Thus, what difference does it make to the BRH their findings? 2006 was marred with many items and one was the BRH beginning their first year as an independent institution. This also marked the year that NC Baptist elected Brother Milton Hollifield as Executive-Director/Treasurer. Nothing about Brother Hollifield’s election marred 2006, but think about how he felt as he came into his position to find one of our leading agencies has a self-perpetuating board. He has done a fine job dealing with this situation. I would have given into the temptation to explain how a door hits a certain part of the body when you are escorted out of the building. Brother Milton has certainly handled this situation as the Baptist statesman he is. Then, in the 2006 convention, it was argued by those in support of the BRH that we release the 2006 escrowed funds because we would be placing seniors on the street. The argument about seniors losing their homes came from trustees, but also came in a letter from President Stillerman. Then in early 2007 we are told that the BRH does not need the $900k from the BSCNC.

Allow me to wrap this thing up. Is all this wrangling over the direction of the BRH about the future of the BRH or is it about money? Every argument proposed from the BRH’s administration and trustees has been centered around money. We were first told that the need for this relationship was in order to enable the BRH a receive loans from their lenders. These loans were being hindered by the relationship that tied BRH to the BSCNC.  However, in 1994 the BRH trustees changed the charter that would allow them to make themselves an independent agency–something they did in December 2005.  Also, in Generations of Caring: Fifty Years of Service to the Older Adults of North Carolina, BRH’s 2001 self-published history:

Stillerman had not been in the job long when he received a visit from Wayne Duncan, who was then City Executive for First Citizens Bank in Winston-Salem. Duncan said later that he always felt he was making a good loan because it was backed by more than 3,000 Baptist churches in the state as well as the Baptist State Convention.

Thus, we see the loan argument as a smoke screen used to pull at emotions and move away from the NCBSC. When one peruses the Economic Research Institute (ERI) website it is easy to find the form 990′s filed by the BRH. One can see that the trustees approved a $113k raise in 2005 for their president and who knows the amount of 2006 (BRH 2006 990 is not currently available on ERI). However, the BSCNC Executive Committee is informed in January, 2007 the BRH no longer need nearly $1 million. Just 3 months earlier we were told on the convention floor they will probably have to throw seniors out on the street if they cannot pay their bills. We need to accept the report with the amendment that we keep the money already escrowed and allow the BRH to continue in their direction. If this entire issue is about what is right and what is wrong then we need to first rectify this issue by telling the Presidents of the agencies and institutions that they are to have no input into the choosing of trustees. This entire debacle with BRH and the other institutions comes back to the Presidents choosing their own trustees. The BRH was legally stolen from the NCBSC all because we allowed the Presidents the freedom to give a list of names they wanted for trustees. It is the same for the colleges and universities. We need to stop allowing Presidents to choose their trustees. If this is about money, then we need the trustees to give an account as to why they gave a man, already making double the amount of the Executive Director/Treasurer, a six-figure raise.

The convention this year is about money. Those trying to move away from the convention want to retain the money in order to fund their extravagance but they want to make us feel guilty when we question that extravagance. I have to give it to the BRH, they have earned their money the old fashioned way–they had a fox guarding the chicken house and now legally own the barn yard.

Digg ThisShare via email

Oct 07

20

Is it Time?

Posted by Tim Rogers on October 20, 2007
Posted in Baptist Retirement Homes of North Carolina • Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Cooperative Baptist Fellowship • Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute • Giving Plans • Missions • Mrs. Ruby Fullbright • Southern Baptist Convention • Women's Missionary Union of North Carolina  | 6 Comments

Recently I was called by the editor of the Biblical Recorder to question if there was forthcoming a motion from me concerning combining the giving plans of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention (BSCNC). In the course of the interview I made it abundantly clear that this motion did not hold with it the intention for anyone to leave the convention. While some may offer comments otherwise, I promise you my heart is clear on the intent of this motion. I honestly believe that if we are going to be united in North Carolina we must unite the giving plans. Uniting the giving plans unite NC Baptist in three ways.

Intention

What is the intent of those giving to the various plans? There are different ideas all across the state about who deserves what and how much each entity should get. However, as you look at the plans you find that it is more than just a disagreement on who gets what. The plans were developed and designed out of vengeance. The first division of the giving plan came because some desired to hurt SBC causes due to the Conservative Resurgence, but they did not want North Carolina affected. That plan is now called Plan B. When that plan was not doing as much as some thought it should there came forth a new plan that placed nothing in the SBC coffers and helped fund a new start-up denomination called Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, but they still did not desire to hurt North Carolina. That plan is known as Plan C. When conservatives came into leadership prominence, there was decided that another plan was needed in order to keep the conservatives from doing completely away with Plan C. This plan is known as Plan D. This plan allows for lest to go to North Carolina, but more to in-state pet projects of the Conservatives. Fruitland Bible Institute is a huge recipient of this plan. Once again, notice how this plan came about. It was done to keep the conservatives from deleting Plan C.

Which brings me to a question. What is the intent in our giving? Do we give because we do not like something? Do we give more because we like something? In 1 Corinthians 8:3 the Apostle Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the Macedonians gave to a poverty relief fund out of their own poverty. I can imagine some in the churches there in Macedonia saying, we are just as poor as those in Jerusalem we are not giving to help them. No, they gave above their ability and the Bible goes on to tell us that they pleaded with Paul to allow them the opportunity to give. It seems that we in North Carolina need to return to our intention of giving. What is the reason I lead my church to support our Cooperative Missions Giving Offering? What is the reason that you lead yours? Returning to one giving plan will unite North Carolina Baptist on intent.

Insinuation

What does four giving plans insinuate about North Carolina Baptist? Not only that, but what do giving plans that give directly to CBF insinuate about North Carolina Baptist? According to CBF website the BSCNC is listed as a Congregational Partner. Who knows exactly what that means. If you follow this link on Congregational Life it says the CBF will fund up to $20k of certain projects. I do not believe the BSCNC is receiving any funds from CBF. However, the insinuation that we are Partners with CBF tells the world that BSCNC is supporting the CBF in their mission through our budget.

Let’s not leave Plan D out. What is the insinuation of Plan D? Well it tells the world that there are things going on in the BSCNC that is not acceptable. Plan D has grown the most in the past couple of years. Shouldn’t that say something to our leaders? What is going on that makes churches move their giving from Plan A to Plan D? Plan D gives less to the BSCNC but gives the same amount to the SBC as Plan A. Plan D insinuates that there is not enough votes for me to change something at the convention level so instead of pulling out altogether, I will give a nominal amount. But I do not want to hurt Fruitland and by giving to this plan I can still have a voice in the convention.

Multiple giving plans insinuate to the world that we are not together in North Carolina. The insinuation further brings about division within the local associations and also even comes to the church. Some churches giving to Plan C do not realize they are not supporting Southern Baptist causes. Plan D was presented as a plan that would allow more SB causes to be funded. However, most churches giving to Plan D do not realize they are giving no more % to Southern Baptist causes than a church giving to Plan A.

The insinuation of a united front is the first thing that is brought to light when you call a budget consultant to your church. I had the opportunity to use a consultant from the BSCNC to help our church make certain that our budget was doing what we desired it to do. The first thing he pointed to was the various “love” offerings we involved ourselves in. He commented that a church was not united in cause when there were small groups of people pushing for a love offering for their pet projects. What a unique concept.

Therefore uniting the giving plans into one plan insinuates to the world that we are united. We are together in what we are about and that we plan to accomplish our tasks under a united banner.

Mission

What is our mission as a convention? According to our Articles of Incorporation we see two purposes of our formation.

A. To assist the churches in their divinely appointed mission; to promote missions, evangelism, education, social services, the distribution of the Bible and sound religious literature; and to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

B. To do any and all acts and things which may be deemed desirable or expedient for the benefit of the programs of the Convention.

This mission should be funded through one budget. If we relegate our responsibility of education to the CBF, then let the schools be under the banner of CBF. We should not set up a separate budget in order to accommodate our purpose for education.

I will not try to explain how we are able to have a budget designated to the CBF when our mission plainly states we are “to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention“. Suffice it to say that a study in 2001-02 produced a decision by lawyers that this statement did not restrict us from setting up a plan giving directly to the CBF. However, I still ask the same question.

We need to focus on our mission and it is evident from the WMU-NC’s latest move that we are not united on mission. Mrs. Ruby Fulbright, Executive Director of the WMU-NC, said in a meeting that BSCNC was focused on Evangelism and Church Planting and WMU-NC was focused on Evangelism and Social Ministry. This statement was a shock to many in the meeting. However, if you look at our budget one can see how these various mission visions compete with one another. If we had one budget then we would be able to clearly define the mission because it would be reflected in the budget. If an entity or auxiliary were then to say their mission was different we would be surprised for a reason.

Conclusion

Will we lose congregations if this motion passes and the study committee returns a recommendation to return to one budget? We probably will. Will we lose congregations if we continue with separate giving plans? We most definitely will. This trend has already been noted especially among churches giving to Plans B & C. Many are wondering aloud the reason we are bending over backwards trying to salvage relationships when we are constantly getting bombarded with walk outs. I have also spoken with some that desire to see these issues settled in court. What many do not realize is that the Baptist Retirement Homes of North Carolina did not allow the new trustees chosen by the BSCNC to attend their first trustee meeting. Why? BRHNC does not recognize BSCNC’s right to seat trustees. This is wrong, but I do not believe court action is the answer.  If we have one giving plan will this keep these incidents from taking place in the future? Probably not. But, if we have one giving plan we will certainly tell everyone that takes money out of the pot that those placing money in the pot are united.

Thus, the time is now for the BSCNC to begin the process to return us to one giving plan. Whoever we lose I bid them Godspeed in their endeavors. Whoever we gain I praise God for their addition and desire to seek God’s will through their participation in the BSCNC.

Digg ThisShare via email