Header image alt text

Southern Baptist in NC

Keeping Christ central in the world of Southern Baptists

Nov 08

12

The late Ted Stone Would be Proud–NC Baptist Vote to Remove CBF

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 12, 2008
Posted in Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Budget Giving Plans • Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina • Cooperative Baptist Fellowship  | 30 Comments

The late Rev. Ted Stone for years stood to the convention floor in North Carolina and made motion after motion to either remove Plan C (The Plan that excludes the SBC completely but is still counted as CP giving in NC) or go back to one giving plan.  His last attempt was the convention the November before a heart attack ended his life while he was walking across North America to raise awareness of the drug problems facing our nation.  Brother Ted stood courageously and many times unpopularly.  It was at his last attempt that Brother CJ Bordeaux brought a message from Dr. Morris Chapman that basically placed Brother Ted’s statements as suspect concerning the giving plans.  However, Brother Ted can now take credit that his hard work over the years has born fruit here in North Carolina.

North Carolina Baptist voted Wednesday during the budget discussion to remove Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as an option of the new giving plan.  For years NCBSC had 4 giving plans and last year a motion was made by Dr. Scott Eanes for the Executive Committee to form a committee to study the giving plans as to their viability.  The Study Committee was headed by Dr. Ed Yount from Conover.  This committee had hardened conservative warriors along with hardened moderate warriors.  However, they came to an agreement that the plan to present was one that included an option for churches that still wanted to support the CBF.  This committee did their research and followed what they believed to be the direction God was leading.  One thing they forgot to do.  They forgot to tell the reason for leaving the CBF option available.  The reason everyone was given centered mainly around the desire to stop fussing and fighting and a desire to do ministry together with someone that does not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  Those were the reasons given around the convention hall as reported by the maker of the amendment.

It seemed the convention was going to get through a year without controversy.  There were two scheduled miscellaneous business sessions where nothing came to the floor from the messengers.  I am certain the leaders of the convention were walking on cloud nine this morning with the diverseness of the committee that was making the only controversial motion.  This probably was a done deal in the minds of many.  Even with Dr. CJ Bordeaux, a constant critic of Plan C and anything CBF in the past, speaking for the recommendation that included the option to be chosen, this motion was not going to pass that easily.  Why?

I believe the reason was right before the eyes of the convention.  I did not attend this year, so I do not know what the spirit was in the convention hall.  However, just seeing this on live stream made me laugh at the simplicity by which this amendment passed.  If I did not know better, I would be suspicious of the back room deal brokers.  However, I know Rick Speas and I can assure you he went out of his way to make certian nothing of the sort happened.  I also know members of the Study Committee and I can also assure you they kept this information close to their chest.  None that I spoke with would even hint at what they were trying to accomplish.  The reason this amendment passed is that NC Baptist are Southern Baptist they are not CBF Baptist.  (This statement is something the Baptist General Convention of Texas would do well to heed.) NC Baptist are trying their best to say that we do not want anything to do with CBF.  If there are churches that desire to be CBF then have at it.  However, do not try to tell the world that you are Southern Baptist and be part of an organization that was organized as a result of being disgruntled with doctrines Southern Baptist believed and held dear.

What does this mean for BSCNC?  It means that the churches that were bypassing the convention are now going to need to stop.  It means that we are in this together and thus we need to support the budget together.  I know the SBC has some fine agencies and I am in agreement that the SBC is who we support with our $$$’s.  However, we do this through the State Convention.  Not only does it mean we move our giving to go directly to the BSCNC, but we need to press our leaders on two other issues.  First, we need leaders serving on the Executive Board that count the CP gifts as only those gifts going to the Cooperative Program.  While I am a supporter of the IMB, by my giving directly to the IMB does not say that I am giving to the Cooperative Program.  Our leaders need to go back and read the 1925 agreement made when the CP came into being.  Second, we need people serving on the Board of Directors to come from churches that give at the very least 5% of their churches undesignated funds in CP giving.  We need these leaders to stop short changing the convention especially when they are serving in a position to direct where the money is going.  Let’s face it, there are churches that were part of the BSCNC for the sole reason that we were allowing their funds to flow through Cary straight to the CBF in Atlanta.  These churches will stop funding through the convention and give to the CBF-NC, which by the way, has the same formula of giving that we used to call Plan C.  Only difference is that the CBF-NC now retains the 64% not the BSCNC.  So there will be a drop in giving so there needs to be an increase from conservative churches to help offset this drop.

Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC.  We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF.  We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church.

Well, there you have it.  Certainly does seem to have been an interesting convention and I had nothing to do with that motion coming to the floor.  However, I believe the late Rev. Ted Stone would be proud.  Of course he is in a place now that budgets and who gives to whom has no concern for him.  He is rejoicing around our Father’s throne.  Let us now do the same.  Go and expand the Kingdom of God–OUR CLARION CALL!!!

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

Oct 07

28

NC Baptist State Convention–You should Go There!

Posted by Tim Rogers on October 28, 2007
Posted in Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina • Giving Plans • Southern Baptist Convention  | 23 Comments

One of my favorite Andy Griffith shows was the time that Opie Taylor was loosing his money to a bigger boy. Seems this boy told Opie that he had to pay a fee to get to school each day. Opie was told that if he did not pay this fee then he had to suffer the consequences of the bigger boy beating him up. Opie tried to get around this payment by getting nickels from other people. Andy got wind of it and had Barney follow Opie for a day. Barney discovered the bigger boy shaking down Opie and reported it to Andy. Well Andy, in his classic way explained to Opie that he needed to stand up for himself and not allow this older boy to keep taking his money that should be used for his milk. Opie stood up for himself received a black eye but ended up stopping the big boy from shaking him down.

At this year’s convention you will hear many fear statements given in order to keep the money rolling in. Opie received a black eye and North Carolina Baptist may receive some negative press. However, we must recognize the various areas where the fear card will be presented as we enter this convention.

The Fear of Losing Autonomy

It seems that we are at the same place in North Carolina. While we are not being “shook down” by other denominations, we are being mis-informed by the use of fear mongering. We are told by Dr. Mike Cogdill that the current giving plans “allow churches the right and privilege to decide how their money sent to the Convention should be spent“. Let me say that I love and respect Dr. Cogdill. He was my advisor when I attended Campbell and I have had him preach for me before. Our wives share the same name, and I admire him as a scholar and one that has a passion for what God has called him to do. However, he and I are in disagreement on this issue. Dr. Cogdill is promoting a false sense of autonomy in this argument. He says; “Multiple giving plans allow for Baptists of different viewpoints to be a part of this Convention and to not feel shut out“. Multiple giving plans divide the convention because it takes away the sense of following God as a group. Autonomy does not mean individualism. Working together as autonomous congregations means that we choose together and after the vote is taken we follow together what the majority said we believed was God’s leading. Feeling “shut out” is an individualistic mind-set that says to the world; “if I do not get my way then I am going home”. Using the term “shut out” says that once your words held weight and now they do not. Just because one does not take the advice of another, does not mean that one has been “shut out”. Feeling “shut out” is a term of control and what one usually means is the control one once experienced no longer is available.

The Fear of Losing Churches

We need to understand that churches will have to make decisions that their Pastor is currently making for them. Many Pastors direct the funds to other plans and their churches have no idea they are supporting CBF causes. There are, I believe, less than 500 churches that will leave the convention because of this move. While no one desires to see any church leave the convention, this will be a sad reality if the convention passes the motion to consolidate the plans into one. We need to ask ourselves a collective question. What is better, that we continue down the same road fussing about every item that comes our way, or do we consolidate into one giving plan and get on with God’s business of planting churches and evangelizing a lost world?

Some will try to present the lose of churches as something that the mean conservatives are out to see. However, let’s look at churches. We did not seem to have a problem that we lost churches over the homosexual issue. You may respond that the homosexual issue was clearly Scriptural. I agree. But, isn’t unity a Scriptural mandate also? If a church cannot be united in the purpose clearly spelled out in our Articles of Incorporation; “to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention“, then they need to leave. If a church cannot agree with that purpose, then we are doing an injustice to that church by maintaining programs that have nothing to do with the Southern Baptist Convention. We are allowing that church to live a lie and we are supporting that lie with our giving plans.

The Fear of Losing Money

Dr. Cogdill seems to think that we will lose money in studying something that has already been over-studied. I agree that there have been study committees before on this issue. One of our current Parliamentarians served on a study committee about the various plans. However, the issue of the study committee never has been directed as to placing these plans back into one plan. The purpose of this study group is to find a way to return us to one budget plan. The reason we have not been able to pass motions in the past for returning to one plan was the unintentional de-funding of needed missions and ministry already in place in the budget. There are some that say we will lose money because various churches will pull away from the convention. However, lets examine the current state of giving in NC. Currently, Plan C is down 30%. Other plans are already down and as a convention we are approximately $1 million behind where we were last year at this time. Take time to look at the past 4 months here in North Carolina. Every time you click on the web at the Biblical Recorder one is told of turmoil in the convention. We should expect nothing more than to be behind in our giving. It seems that churches are waiting to see how stable we are as a convention.

We will lose money because churches that give to other plans will decide to leave the convention. You will see churches go to exclusive giving to CBF-NC and you will also hear some churches that remain questioning why we made this move. However, we will be a stable healthy convention with a fixed focus on what God wants us to do. We will not be constantly pulled back and forth trying to make moves that are politically correct in order to keep the disagreements below the surface.

Conclusion

There are more issues coming up at this convention than any convention that I can remember since 1991. I missed the 1998-2000 conventions, but I do not believe there were multiple issues like we are having at this one. However, we must stand united as we move forward from this convention and we must take the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world. How can we become united? Place all giving plans into one.

Digg ThisShare via email

Sep 07

14

Is it Right or Wrong?

Posted by Tim Rogers on September 14, 2007
Posted in Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina • Lausanne Covenant • Ruby Fulbright • SBC Seminaries • Women's Missionary Union of North Carolina  | 18 Comments

We should not be taken up in the search for truth, as to neglect the needful duties of active life; for it is only action that lives a true value and commendation to virtue. —Cicero

The ethical dilemma that plagues the North Carolina Baptist State Convention (BSCNC) and the Women’s Missionary Union-North Carolina (WMU-NC) seems to be one that is very difficult for all involved. The dilemma appears to be a dichotomy between pursuing missions and working together. However, it appears the dichotomy removes itself once there is an agreement on the definition of missions.

When one looks at the Lusanne Covenant, there is a clear difference in ministry and missions. However, the WMU-NC do not differentiate between the two. According to this report, Mrs Fulbright presented four statements that outlined the reasons behind the WMU-NC’s move. In the first statement she says;

Church planting and evangelism is the vision and current direction of the
BSCNC. WMU-NC has stated: “however, we are a missions organization
believing that missions is ministry and evangelism.”

This type of combining two completely different areas of service blur the lines of missions. According to the Lusanne Covenant missions is defined as church planting and evangelism. Without evangelism church planting will not take place. There is no church planting that can be accomplished through humanitarian ministry. Granted the humanitarian ministry opens the opportunity for missions to take place, but our aim is evangelism and church planting. If we are not going to present the Gospel with the clear intention of planting a church, then we are doing no more than advancing the name of Baptist. I love Southern Baptist and believe that North Carolina is headed down the right track to become more committed in identifying with the Southern Baptist Convention. But, if I have to choose between ministry, which advances the Southern Baptist or evangelism and church planting which advances Jesus, that is a no brainer–it is Jesus every time.

You may begin to hear that the WMU-NC is afraid that they will go the way of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS). Do you remember SEBTS? That bastion of moderates that refused to allow conservatives in any shape or form and only had one token “conservative” on faculty. Once the trustees gained a majority then president Dr. Randall Lolley stepped down. Once Dr. Lolley resigned some actually had a mock funeral to bury the seminary. Today there is over 2k FTE students. Not bad for a seminary that was supposed to be dead. The WMU-NC decided they no longer wanted to be considered an “auxiliary” of the BSCNC, but a “cooperative partner”.

“Cooperative Partner” is interesting language used by the WMU-NC. I understand that others use this term and one should not be concerned. However, it is very ironic that this is the term chosen when a majority of the leaders of the WMU-NC retain their membership in churches that clearly identify themselves with Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. With the CBF-NC coming to the rescue so quickly after the announcement of WMU-NC, it does make one question whether they knew this was going to happen. Let me explain. Thursday, August 16, 2007 there was a telephone conference call by 75% of the WMU-NC Executive Committee. That call ended in a vote to leave the BSCNC building. Tuesday, August 21, 2007 the leadership of the BSCNC was notified by the WMU-NC of their vote and intentions. On Thursday, August 23, 2007 the regular meeting of CBF-NC Coordinating Council was in session. According to this release, in this regularly scheduled meeting the CBF-NC Coordinating Council voted unanimously to support WMU-NC in their move and they also commissioned an emergency offering to raise funds for this transition. Coincident? It is hard to imagine. As a side note there is something that causes more concern for me. The President of the BSCNC Board of Directors had to request a proposal from WMU-NC in order to present this matter to the Executive Committee. How was this information made available to the Coordinating Council of the CBF-NC before it was to the very people who holds WMU-NC accountable?

The future looks as if it will be a tumultuous convention this year at Greensboro. I predict that if we maintain this level of contention the least attended session at this year’s convention will be the election of officers. One would also have to seriously ask a question. Mrs. Lisa Horton seemed to clearly articulate what is tearing apart my insides.

Is all this really worth it? When you think about the confusion this will bring to local churches and how this could affect the North Carolina Missions Offering, I keep asking if this is necessary.

Mrs. Cindy Stevens asked if the convention had done anything to bring about this drastic of a move by the WMU-NC . Here is what I believe to be the “real” reason behind the situation we find ourselves. Mrs. Fulbright responded it was the insistence of BSCNC to be final hiring authority.

Thus, I return to the statement by Cicero. This drastic move is not about missions, and neither is it about WMU-NC’s desire to expand their missions involvement. This, according to Mrs. Fulbright’s statement, appears to be a disagreement of an employee of the BSCNC and her refusal to be seen as such.

Digg ThisShare via email

Aug 07

29

What has NC Conservatives Accomplished?

Posted by Tim Rogers on August 29, 2007
Posted in Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina • Dr. Greg Mathis • Dr. Mac Brunson • Dr. Mike Cummings • Dr. Mike Queen • Milton Hollifield • Women's Missionary Union of North Carolina  | 8 Comments

Very Much indeed!

In North Carolina we are one of the very few state conventions that have cooperated together with churches that support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Have I agreed with everything the state convention leadership has done? Not really. Have we tried to cooperate with the leadership at our schools and other entities? Certainly, we have.

Brief History

North Carolina has a unique set-up as to the appointments for various committees. On the national level our SBC President has appointive powers solely. In North Carolina the President and the Vice Presidents serve as a committee nominating, not appointing, persons to serve on the Committee on Committees and Committee on Enrollment to the Board of Directors for their approval. Therefore when you elect a President in North Carolina the task is not complete until you also elect as least one conservative Vice President. These two should be able to get conservatives elected to the Committee on Committees and once that happens the Committee on Committees will in turn nominate the Committee on Nominations. The Committee on Nominations is responsible for nominating the persons for the various Boards that serve our agencies and the Board of Directors (Convention Trustees). In the Board of Directors for the convention there are various committees, called groups. It is in this Board of Directors that change can be implemented. However, the real catalyst for change lies within the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is made up of the President and both Vice Presidents of the convention along with the President, Vice President, and Secretary that are elected by the Board of Directors and also other Chairpersons of various committees and groups of the Board of Directors.

North Carolina was firmly in the hands of moderates until 1996. It was during that year we elected Dr. Greg Mathis and Dr. Kenneth Riddings as President and 1st Vice President respectively. However, though we had a conservative majority in the officers, we still had a moderate majority in the Board of Directors. Dr. Mike Queen served as President of the Executive Committee, thus Dr. Greg Mathis had to be careful about his nominations because the Board of Directors could over-ride his nomination with nominations of their own. When Dr. Mathis was elected it was called the Greg and Mike show. And show they did. Dr. Mathis proved the old adage that conservatives are mean and uncooperative was not true. Dr. Mathis worked well with all of the moderates and as a result of working with them North Carolina elected Dr. Mac Brunson as President and Dr. Mike Cummings as 1st Vice President. When Dr. Brunson went to First Dallas with over a year left on his term, Dr. Mike Cummings stepped up and continued working with moderates in order to accomplish a stated objective–return North Carolina to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Today in North Carolina

We are in a situation where many of those who disagree with the direction of the BSCNC are pulling out of the convention. This situation would not be so bad if it did not affect the very agencies that we all have supported for years. The agencies of the convention do not have a majority of trustees that agree with the direction of the convention, thus they are making noise to leave. Those who lead these agencies know that North Carolina Baptist at large will not agree to enter into a court battle. Neither do I believe we should. The agencies and institutions appear to be using this to their advantage. They are changing charters, without the knowledge or approval of the convention, and then requesting to choose their own trustees. If the convention votes not to allow them to choose their own trustees then they will leave anyway and say they have the legal authority to do so because their charter was changed. This is basically what happened with the Baptist Retirement Homes of NC (BRHNC). We are still trying to work out an alternative with this institution. This group changed their charter after the 2005 convention and then informed the BSCNC in 2006 that they would be choosing their own trustees. When it was investigated, it was revealed the institution had already changed their charter to choose their own trustees. They changed this charter because the 2005 Nominating Committee rejected some trustee nominations because they were in churches that were affiliated with and promoted the Alliance of Baptist. I do not know if the Nominating Committee’s actions affected any trustees for the BRHNC, but that is one area discussed in the debate at the convention. From my vantage point I see the leadership of BSCNC trying hard to cooperate with all of the agencies and institutions, but some are just not willing to cooperate.

The Baptist schools have already moved away from the BSCNC. We are told that it is not a divorce, as some here say it is not. However, Dr. Bruce Martin a conservative in our state disagrees here. Our universities worked out a deal with the Executive Leadership Team of NCBSC and thus they will be choosing their own trustees after three years. Our budgeted level of giving to these institutions will decrease each year accordingly.

Women’s Missionary Union-NC

We have seen this coming for the past 16 months. It first began with WMU-NC desiring a change in the term used to describe their relationship with the convention. They desired to change the term from “auxiliary” to “cooperative partner“. You can read here, here, here, and here, for the coverage of this issue. While I know the WMU-NC had every legal right to do what they did, I only question the ethics of such a move. Ladies in my church complained to me that they did not see anything like this move coming.

Where Does this Leave Us?

We are in a situation in North Carolina that seems to be where some conservatives desired to be back in 1996. I remember at a Conservative Carolina Baptist meeting in the fall of 1996 Dr. Greg Mathis, candidate for President, answered many questions from those present. In that meeting the late Dr. Mark Corts settled the minds of many who desired to leave and begin another convention in the state. There were some that kept this threat until there was another giving plan established in the budget. When this giving plan became reality the call to begin another convention fell on deaf ears.

What has been gained by conservatives for their years of struggles and tongue biting in order to cooperate? When the moderates were in leadership we were told to stay with it because it is better to cooperate than to try and leave. We cooperated and sent our children to schools that taught much of what we did not agree but knew that one day we would be able to implement, through the trustee system, a more balanced teaching. We cooperated and sent our aging parents to BRHNC only to find out that our retirement homes do not belong to Baptist. We cooperated and listened to the ladies in our church promote an organization that has systematically made changes that placed the power in the hands of 30 women. Now these ladies we heard promote WMU-NC are asking how decisions could be made like this without including them.

Conservatives have accomplished what we set out to accomplish–move BSCNC back to support of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are also heading toward more support being given to Southern Baptist through the CPMG. However, there seems to be unrest with those agency and institutions that are still affiliated with us. They change their charters and leave and then paint our leadership as the ones unreasonable. Exactly where do we find ourselves? We are now in a position that we need to either fish or cut bait. The kind of fish we have been catching, as we cast a wider net, is mainly sting rays. They travel so gracefully and look so beautiful in their element, but will send a shard through your heart when you least expect.

Digg ThisShare via email

Aug 07

22

We Mean Utilitarianism Not Cooperation=WMU-NC

Posted by Tim Rogers on August 22, 2007
Posted in Baptist State Convention of North Carolina • Cooperative Baptist Felloship of North Carolina • Milton Hollifield • Norman Jameson • Ruby Fulbright • Utilitarianism • Women's Missionary Union of North Carolina  | 32 Comments

When I was growing up, I was in a church that constantly pushed missions. The ladies in that church were WMU to the core. They certainly overstepped their stated objective many times, but the end result meant missions would go forth. Therefore, not many of the Deacons were too excited when they had to approach the WMU about their violation of church calendar scheduling and the likes. Many of these men would respond; “well it is for missions and how can you argue against promoting missions.” Or, my favorite, “we do not want to upset the women.” I learned, growing up in that church environment, three principles that have served me well as a Pastor today. Principle One, don’t cross the WMU Director. Principle Two, don’t cross the WMU Director. Principle Three, don’t cross the WMU Director. As you can tell these three principles are exaggerations. However, what I observed as a child in this environment was that the WMU Director could and did make life difficult for everyone if she did not get certain things when it came to this organization.

Here in North Carolina we had a brew-ha-ha start 16 months ago. It began innocently enough as our Women’s Missionary Union-North Carolina (WMU-NC) decided they needed to change a phrase that defined their relationship with The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC). The phrase changed from “auxillary” to “cooperative partner”. Many in North Carolina Baptist life decided it was not worth arguing over and thus decided to allow the Executive Director to work through the issue with the WMU-NC Director.

It seemed this controversy escalated when it was noted that hiring practices were being violated and had been for years. The WMU-NC saw the BSCNC Executive Director as merely signing paperwork in order to place WMU-NC employees in the BSCNC payroll. The BSCNC Executive Director saw it has his fiduciary responsibility to be involved with the hiring of WMU-NC employees. The WMU-NC countered with documents from a 1997 Executive Board vote detailing that the WMU-NC is autonomous of the BSCNC. What does all of this mean? Who knows, but I do have some observations and questions.

It seems that the WMU-NC is operating from a utilitarian point of view. Simply put utilitarianism says “the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome“. Here in NC we have struggled for years with moderates within the convention. As conservatives we have tried hard not to push people out but to remain resolute in our stands that we were in support of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) while maintaining a spirit of cooperation. Thus, the conservatives never left to form their own convention here in NC. The WMU-NC appears to be driven by a desire to receive funds from, and partner with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina (CBF-NC). They are not able to do that with their charter, as they are listed as an auxiliary, thus the change to “cooperative partner”. However, they still desire to be part of the North Carolina Missions Offering, which if it is fully funded they receive a little under $900k, which is the largest percentage amount in the NCMO. It seems all can tell the driving desire to continue in relationship with NCBSC.

Here is why I believe the WMU-NC is operating from a utilitarian mindset. Does the WMU-NC believe they have done anything wrong by changing their charter without any input from the BSCNC leaders? The WMU-NC would probably respond with a resounding NO! If you or I respond by questioning their reasoning for their answer they will point to the good of missions and how they will be able to expand that work by partnering with other “like minded Baptist” here in North Carolina. However, it is wrong for an auxiliary organization to change their charter without input from the very organization of which they are the auxiliary. Also, I question the decision of the Executive Committee in 1997. I do not remember changing the status of the WMU-NC to an autonomous body coming before the convention. It may have and was passed, but I do not remember it and cannot find any account of it. Utilitarianism says that it may be wrong to do this but if everyone feels good about it, then morally it is alright. We therefore begin making decisions based on what makes us feel good instead of what we have spelled out as right and wrong.

Our state paper’s new editor, Norman Jameson, deals with this issue on his blog. In the comments section I thought some very well reasoned arguments carried the day. One person by the name of David commented that a lack of accountability is the issue. By the WMU-NC making this move they are removing their accountability from North Carolina Baptist Churches to a small board of directors. By WMU-NC board of directors voting to remove themselves from under the umbrella of the BSCNC as an auxiliary, they have no accountability to the churches of North Carolina. Another visitor by the name of Janet commented that if the WMU-NC wants to leave then they should go. She also calls on the BSCNC to set up a group to carry out the task of the WMU-NC.

This latest level of contention is sad. The WMU-NC is not just leaving the building, it seem they are leaving North Carolina Baptist. I do wish them well, but I can tell you that I will be meeting with my WMU leadership to set the record straight. I would like to ask a couple of questions. If you are in North Carolina, how are you going to respond to this situation with your WMU? If you are not in North Carolina, how would you respond to this type of situation with your WMU? What does this mean for the NCMO? Would you designate that everything go to all of the other missions except WMU-NC? I do pray that we in North Carolina weather this storm. I also want to ask the leadership of the BSCNC a question. Can you tell me what we as conservatives have gained by saying we now have conservatives in leadership? More on my response to that question in a later post.

Digg ThisShare via email