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.
Tim,
If you read their Childrens Material you will discover that WMU has already left the Bible in a major way. Check out the Children In Action stuff and notice the translation total lack of value.
I think many will be facing this in the coming months and we better batten down the hatches for WMU has already promoted this in their adult material and the ladies are being snowed in a big way!
Comment by Tim G — August 22, 2007 @ 1;18 pm
Tim R,
I have been a WMU supporter my whole life. My wife is a member of the state WMU resource team. She attends the WMU’s prison retreat each year to minister to inmates. Also, she has been a speaker at the last two WMU MissionsExtravaganza’s at Ridgecrest.
As you can tell, we support WMU. As I understand it, WMU works with baptist churches in SBC and CBF. Just as BSCNC has both SBC and CBF churches, so has WMU-NC. I don’t think this is anything new.
If WMU-NC works with both SBC and CBF, just as BSCNC does, why, then, would they need to change their structure to work with CBF churches?
I don’t get it.
Thanks.
Les
Comment by Les Puryear — August 22, 2007 @ 2;25 pm
Brother Tim,
You are correct, it does appear they are moving from the understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Brother Les,
Great question. I am sorry that I did not link to the article in the Biblical Recorder, but I believe you will find that link on Brother Norman’s blog that I have linked to in my post. The article really outlines the issues that have brought us to this point.
Also, and I plan to post on this next, but we have been told since the early 90’s that we needed to be patient as conservatives. We were told that if we pushed too hard we would never get appointed or get conservatives elected. If we went that route we would have to begin a new convention and no one had the intestinal fortitude to do that. Everyone of our conservative leaders wanted to work within the structure of the convention to get things done. Well, we have done that and what do we have left? Many of our institutions have left and we are now in historical relationships with schools founded by the BSCNC.
Just my take on it. That and $3.50 will get you some great coffee at Starbucks. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 22, 2007 @ 3;09 pm
Tim: You don’t seem to understand what utilitarianism is. It is not we do what we feel like even if it may be wrong. Instead, that ethical system says that what is the right or moral thing to do is that which brings about the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. That is a pretty big difference. Your mistake on the ethical system seems to represent your mistaken analysis on this situation overall.
Comment by Kaylor — August 22, 2007 @ 4;21 pm
I’m in a secular profession and the mantra here is that the end justifies the means. Well, in our Spiritual lives, and reading of Jesus’ instructions and examples, the means is ALL we have. The end is entirely up to God.
Or at least it should be. I’ve given up counting the times I’ve seen it done the other way around.
Comment by Bob Cleveland — August 22, 2007 @ 4;40 pm
Brother Kaylor,
Thanks for your input, but I believe I have accurately described Mills’ ethical system. I believe we would refer to it as hedonism. The reason for it would lie in the fact that it deals with pleasure or happiness based on decisions about whether a rule is good. While I will be the first to admit that I stand in much need for further philosophical study, I will also state I believe I have used the term and the ethical system accurately in describing the situation with the WMU-NC.
Brother Bob,
The means is all we have to live with until the end.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 22, 2007 @ 8;13 pm
Tim: You are correct that primitive versions of utilitarianism could be critiqued as leading to hedonism. However, that is not where I was saying you were off. You originally wrote:
“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.”
You wrongly say that utilitarian decisions just want us to feel good instead of doing what is right. Actually, utilitarians (and I am not one) attempt to decide what is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and then that is what is right. Thus, instead of choosing happiness instead of morality, morality is inherently part of what helps the most people the most. The utilitarian is not just going for happiness that may be wrong but believes they are acting right.
Regardless, I think you are off-target in your analysis of the WMU situation. This should not be seen as them “leaving” North Carolina Baptists. We must remember that the WMU was originally created as an autonomous auxiliary. At the state level (not in NC as far as I’ve heard) there have been attempts to bully the WMU and nationally there was a recent attempt to get the WMU to submit to the SBC’s control, which was defeated. The independence has served the WMU well for all these years so why would we try and “fix” something that is not broken.
Comment by Kaylor — August 22, 2007 @ 9;42 pm
Brother Kaylor,
You said; “At the state level (not in NC as far as I’ve heard) there have been attempts to bully the WMU”, and that is the heart of the problem. There has been no “bully” tactics used in NC. This situation erupted 16 months ago when the WMU Executive Board decided to change their status from an “auxiliary” to a “cooperative partner”.
Let me ask you to be completely unbiased for a moment. Where have you heard the term “cooperative partner” before? Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is the first group that I remember using that term. From what I understand, the term is designated for those entities that CBF will fund directly from their budget. Am I saying that WMU-NC has employed this term in order to become part of the budget items of CBF? No! However, I do believe it places them in a better position for this to happen.
This entire issue began 16 months ago by the changing of the phrase as to how the WMU-NC desire to be related to the churches that have developed her and funded her for nearly 100 years. You may not think this signals the WMU leaving NC Baptist. I disagree. It shouts loud and clear, the WMU-NC is not going to be accountable to the very churches that have funded her for administration and the missions projects she desired to promote.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 23, 2007 @ 5;25 am
Kaylor,
Tim is right.
Never in history has anyone been able to “bully” the WMU in North Carolina.
Nobody spits in their Momma’s cornbred. If they did their Momma (NC WMU) would slap them in the face with a dead cat (biscuit pan) and run them off from the table without supper. Also, their brothers (fellow NC pastors) would “smite them hip and thigh” (biblical illustration of what happens to Momma bulliers) and “beat them about the head and shoulders” (southern illustration of what happens to Momma bulliers) if any man in NC tried to bully the WMU.
Tar Heels ain’t much good at football, but they love their Momma’s.
It is true that there has been some “unrest” at the supper table from time to time, but no bully stuff. “No, not never.” Nor shall there be as long as there are Mommas in NC and thus far Mommas make up the WMU in North Carolina.
cb
Comment by cb scott — August 23, 2007 @ 5;53 am
That should have been “but they love their Mommas.” Not Momma’s.
cb
Comment by cb scott — August 23, 2007 @ 6;43 am
Tim: I don’t know the specifics of the NC case so I’m not going to argue with you about that. All I was saying is that since there have been problems elsewhere I would not be surprised if WMU’s in states where there have not been problems would be trying to make sure everything will be okay.
I would say, however, that you are probably reading too much into the term “cooperative partner.” Not sure when the first time I heard it was, but I did not realize that it was a phrase that CBF uses. However, Southern Baptists also use that phrase. For instance, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary was described as a “cooperative partner” in a Baptist Press article (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=16999). And a division of the Georgia Baptist Convention calls itself a “cooperative partner” on the Convention’s Web site (http://rs.gabaptist.org/common/content.asp?PAGE=360). Thus, I think the phrase cannot be used to suggest they are leaving (unless you believe that NOBTS and the Georgia department have joined CBF).
Comment by Kaylor — August 23, 2007 @ 10;00 am
Brother Kaylor,
The specifics is what this is all about. Have you noticed that it seems many are desiring to choose their own trustees here in NC? Also, do you know that WMU-NC already choose their own Executive Committee? This ExCom. decided to change their status from an “auxiliary” to a “cooperative partner”. I personally am not able to argue the differences legally. However, I can tell you lawyers were involved. Then the hiring issues. Brother Hollifield only desired to be involved in the hiring of staff that he was signing off on saying they met the qualifications. Thus an exchange and now the WMU-NC is leaving the building.
You also point to the probability of my reading too much into the term “cooperative partner”. The only reason I pointed to this phrase is that is the exact phrase the CBF uses to describe those that they support from their budget. The term is harmless enough at present, but when this term is placed together with a call from CBF to WMU-NC be one of their “cooperative partners” then no question is asked, and without any qualms from those who have given eggs, milk money, and other sacrifices, the WMU-NC is owned and operated by the CBF. Then those majority churches in NC are subtlety pushed into the CBF fold.
Of course, that is my take on it.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 23, 2007 @ 10;00 pm
Tim,
IMHO it look’s like a Play on Power and the NC/WMU is saying enough is enough.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Comment by Wayne Smith — August 24, 2007 @ 10;46 pm
Brother Wayne,
Who would you say the Play on Power came from first?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 25, 2007 @ 2;36 pm
The Brotherhood Dept. before it went under.
cb
Comment by cb scott — August 25, 2007 @ 3;21 pm
Tim,
We moved here to Texas about 6 years ago from San Diego, Ca. We have been involved in Mission work, plus support for many years.Our Youngest Son was in Kyrgyzstan for 5 years as a self supporting Minssionary, plus help from a small church his last year. Here in our area of Texas, I don’t think there would be any missions support except for the WMU. There an old saying Don’t Bite the Hand that Feed You.
that is why I said it was a Power Play.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Comment by Wayne Smith — August 26, 2007 @ 12;24 am
Tim,
STATE DIGEST: WMU to vacate N.C. offices
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26304
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Comment by Wayne Smith — August 26, 2007 @ 12;29 am
The WMU is another organization that is out of control. If they can’t be under the authority of the SBC, let them go. Let’s form another organization of biblical women who are not causing trouble for our pastors.
Comment by roger — August 26, 2007 @ 4;19 pm
Brother Wayne,
I believe you and I will agree with the statement that “I don’t think there would be any missions support except for the WMU.” Certainly everyone will tell you that the WMU has been stoic in their leadership in raising funds for missions. However, I not certain that we can contribute that leadership to an organization as much as we can to a gender. Certainly the organization WMU has provided material about missionaries and worked very well at presenting this information to the children in the appropriate age grouping in educating the children on mission endeavors. But, I believe you and I would also agree it is not as much the organization doing this as it is the gender involved. I have ladies in my church teaching and working in the WMU organization but are in complete disagreement with the direction of the WMU-NC. It is our ladies that promote the missions in the church, not the WMU. The organization WMU is in the church because the ladies need to name themselves something.
One other thing about this latest move of the WMU-NC. The leadership made this decision with only approximately 75% of their Executive Committee participating in the decision. This decision was a phone poll made within the Executive Committee. Let me ask. How many pastors would change something in the church that only 75% of their Deacon Body was able to voice their opinion?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 27, 2007 @ 1;37 pm
Look, y’all are talking about things when you don’t know the whole story. This is really getting out of control all over the place – in blogs, in news, in everyday conversations. It really bothers me that there is so much misinformation, or in some cases, lack of information. There are several things I wish to address, so I will enumerate them, hopefully to avoid getting off on tangents. I can tell you with authority, for reasons which I do not wish to disclose, that much of what you are speculating is inaccurate. I’m not going to say more than that, but I hope you will read with an open mind in search of the truth rather than what you want to believe.
1) No WMU organization has ever been controlled or organized by the SBC or BSC. In fact, the founding women (Baptist) had to meet in a Methodist church to organize the original organization because the men wouldn’t even allow them to meet in a Baptist church. WMU has always been its own, self-governing organization. The SBC and BSC have no right to demand authority over it, especially not based on history. Take an analogy: Baptist churches use AWANA programs but do not demand that AWANA come under BSC control and do not demand that they have the final authority on hiring AWANA’s employees. Why should they do that to WMU?
There is no reason to “replace” WMU-NC. WMU-NC is not going away; the staff is going to work in a different building. Note, too, WMU-NC is not the Exec Board or the staff, but rather the women in the churches; just as Milton is not the BSC, the members of the churches are.
2) Just to clear up a common misconception: national WMU does not and never has received CP funding.
3) WMU has always promoted all of the SBC’s offerings, and without WMU, undoubtedly their financial support would be much hindered. (However, WMU has never threatened to discontinue such support, even though the SBC and BSC have done not-nice things to them.) Noteworthy also is that WMU bailed the SBC out when it was almost bankrupt way back in the day. And for the record, WMU-NC does not directly receive any CPMG funds either, though you could say they do via the things they receive working at the BSC building (staff benefits, etc.).
4) Speaking of not-nice things, the BSC leadership (not the churches) most certainly has attempted to “bully” WMU-NC. They have done some terribly underhanded things, and WMU-NC has declined to call them out on it because WMU has attempted to resolve the issue in a Christlike manner. The BSC leadership has broken confidentiality and done numerous unethical things, which WMU-NC has declined to make public, seeking in fact, the best interest of the BSC.
5) With regards to utilitarianism, I think that is a silly thing to argue. Do you think this “feels good” for anyone? Do you think WMU-NC wanted this? You’re deceiving yourself if you do. WMU-NC was backed into a corner. They have been trying to resolve the issue kindly for over a year, which no one cares to report, and the BSC leadership has been more than uncooperative and unwilling to consider alternatives. WMU-NC attempted compromise, which also doesn’t hit the headlines, but the BSC leadership was unwilling. As mentioned in #4, they even broke confidentiality and did unethical, hurtful things.
6) The BSC leadership is deceitful, on many accounts but I’ll mention one that doesn’t relate directly to the things they have done to WMU. This year’s NCMO promo (“Get ‘em to Gulfport”) is based on Baptist Men’s disaster relief efforts. The NCMO doesn’t go for disaster relief. Yes, it supports Baptist Men, but the funds do not go into disaster relief whatsoever. People think they are giving to disaster relief because that is how the BSC is promoting it, but it is not the case.
7) As to lack of accountability, WMU-NC is, always has been and always will be accountable to the churches, not Milton Hollifield or any other individual BSC employee. Relocating offices does not mean they are no longer accountable to the churches; it just means the BSC leadership will have less opportunity to treat them unkindly.
9) WMU-NC has always had its own Exec Board. I don’t know why anyone would be incredulous about that. The Exec Board authorizes major decisions of the staff, but the entire voting body authorizes the actions of the Exec Board, and some decisions have to be made directly by the body (i.e., bylaws revisions, etc.). The voting body made the bylaw changes that are so often seen as the beginning of this saga (though they are not), not the Exec Board and certainly not the staff.
10) The Exec Director of the BSC has never had any input in the hiring practices of WMU-NC. Never. Countless WMU employees and former BSC employees have attested to this, yet it is not reported in the newspapers or blogs. People also keep saying that Milton has never “vetoed” the hiring of a WMU employee. That is true. Milton has never had the opportunity to do so. WMU-NC has not brought a candidate to be hired as full-time staff since his tenure began. Now, what is the case is that WMU-NC has attempted to replace its Multicultural Consultant who died, and the BSC leadership has prevented WMU from doing so, period (effectively vetoing a hiring). They have been holding it over WMU’s head for a year and a half now, ever since Linda Hicks died. The situation there is a bit complicated, so let me explain. Linda Hicks was once a full-time WMU-NC staff member. She became ill with cancer to the point that she was not able to do as much as she had, so an agreement was made that she would retire but continue working on a contract basis. When Linda died, WMU-NC sought to fill the position. The BSC leadership would not allow the position to be filled as the full-time position it had been. They said they could not “create a new position” for the multicultural position, primarily because of funding. Now, there was still money allocated for that position in the WMU budget, and it did not require “creating” a new position, but that was the BSC leadership’s argument. Shortly thereafter, the BSC leadership created I think 3 multicultural positions in other departments in the BSC. It was at least 2… They still have not allowed WMU-NC to fill the position.
11) As far as the term “cooperative partner” goes, I can say authoritatively that CBF was not mentioned in the meeting when that phrase was chosen. It was chosen because a) WMU wants to cooperate with the BSC and b) because we partner with them for the cause of missions. It had nothing to do with CBF.
12) As far as curriculum goes, did you know that the children’s materials have more Scripture memory in them than AWANA? And did you know that the Scripture memory is encouraged so that children will have the benefit of knowing God’s Word rather than the benefit of getting candy? And did you know that AWANA’s Scripture memory is rote memorization, but the WMU curriculum emphasizes reflecting on the meaning of Scripture? How is that leaving the Bible?
13) Are you honestly going to boycott the work WMU women do for missions simply because the 9 members of the state staff are going to work in a different building from the one in which they work currently? The WMU-NC office has not always been in the BSC building. The Biblical Recorder was once housed in the BSC building, but no one is upset that it’s not anymore.
14) This latest level of contention is sad. You’re right. But mark my words, it is not because of what WMU has done. WMU has been pushed in a corner with a choice to risk it all one way or risk it all another. After over a year of extending an olive branch, this is the last resort. Knowing all the BSC has done in recent past, which you don’t because it is not published in news sources, WMU-NC would be plain stupid to risk it all by staying in the building with all that would entail. But the issue is not with the churches. The churches haven’t caused this; the BSC leadership has. It is silly to say WMU-NC is deserting NC Baptists merely because they are relocating to a new office space. Have you not been listening? Somehow or other, for once a thing or two WMU-NC has said has been accurately communicated in a news source or two, and one thing that seemed to make it into all of them is Ruby Fulbright’s statement, “We intend to continue working with the churches. We intend to keep praying for, promoting, and supporting the offerings, as well as providing missions education resources and training.” Don’t say WMU-NC is deserting churches. It’s simply not true. And tell me, is WMU-NC is doing anything wrong by doing the things Mrs. Fulbright mentions in her statement? WMU-NC has felt hindered by the BSC leadership in WMU’s efforts to do just those things, and that is part of the reason for the move.
15) Further, let it be known, every time the WMU-NC Board has met in the last 2 years – and all the time in between – God’s will has been sought through prayer and Scripture. In the past year, the women have been focused on treating their brothers and sisters in a Christlike manner despite the conflict, in accordance with all of Paul’s pleas in the NT. WMU-NC leadership has persevered in Christian behavior toward the BSC leadership, even as they made the decision to relocate the state office. That is not to say the WMU-NC leadership has always been perfect or always done the right thing, but they have tried to as best they can, especially in this past year, and I hereby publicly testify to that as I have not seen anyone else point it out.
Let me pose a final question related to partnering with other organizations: what is wrong with cooperating with other Christians, regardless of denomination? WMU is not concerned with loyalty to a denomination, but rather with loyalty to God. WMU will work with any member of the Body of Christ to promote missions because it is more concerned with the Church (big C) than the church (little c). Perhaps the BSC should, too.
Comment by idratherbeanonymous — August 27, 2007 @ 3;48 pm
the last paragraph would make one think that yall are considering supporting the cbf. and, the last paragraph is troubling when the wmu is supposed to an sbc supporting organization. the wmu meets in sbc churches to support sbc missions; or, did i miss something along the way?
david
Comment by volfan007 — August 27, 2007 @ 6;01 pm
btw, i was talking to idratherbeanonymous’ last paragraph.
david
Comment by volfan007 — August 27, 2007 @ 6;02 pm
Vol,
I do not think you missed one little thing on this one. I think you are “TEN RING” at 1000 yards.
cb
Comment by cb scott — August 27, 2007 @ 6;25 pm
Dear Idratherbeanonymous,
First, welcome to Southern Baptist in NC. I do not understand why you feel the need to remain anonymous, but that is your desire and I will honor it. As your IP address gives a location in state other than NC I presume by your in depth response you are intimately involved in the WMU-NC, or with the BSC. I will try to respond to you point-by-point.
1.) I do not believe anyone has stated that the BSC has made a charge for control or authority. I believe the call is for accountability. Also, if AWANA’s was an auxiliary of the BSC and receiving nearly $900K from the NCMO, you better believe we would require accountability. However each church has AWANA and, as you know, each church is autonomous. If a church decides to do AWANA over RA and GA, then that is that church’s decision.
2.) I do not believe that anyone said the National WMU receives any CP funds. If someone has, I must have missed it because I certainly would have corrected that mis-statement.
3.) I am not sure that I would agree with you that without the WMU advertising the CP the SBC would be hurting. It seems that was an agreement between the SBC and the WMU. The WMU would promote the CP and other offerings. AS I recall the IMB tried to begin promoting Lottie Moon and had to back off because of the uproar from the WMU.
As far as the direct support from the CPMG, you literally are correct. However, as you noted office space, fleet cars, and other benefits are worth somewhere around $400K each year. While that is not direct support, it still comes out of the CPMG somewhere.
4.) These are charges that no one can verify. I believe you have made some serious allegations for one that is writing Anonymously. Because you are posting under an Anonymous comment, these charges need to be verified with examples of specifics and names. Especially when you charge our BSC Leadership with violating confidence. That is a serious charge.
5.) Utililtarianism is used for the simple reason, it seems the WMU-NC is doing what they are doing because they believe it is best for WMU-NC and are not considering how this is affecting all of North Carolina. As for the press coverage, I do not believe you can read the Biblical Recorder prior to July, 2007 and accurately state there was no press coverage for the WMU.
6.) As for the NCMO. While the Promo may be somewhat misleading, anyone giving to NCMO understands that everything they give is divided according to the percentages of the NCMO. Here is that link: http://www.ncbaptist.org/index.php?id=882
7.) You cannot lay this at Brother Milton Hollifield’s door. I have never met a more respectful person in trying to promote cooperation. I know for a fact that I have pushed Brother Milton hard to do some things and he pushed just as hard back on me. He desires to cooperate even if others are being uncooperative. One thing that needs to be remembered. No one has told the WMU-NC to leave the building and give up their positions as employees. Those directives have come from the WMU-NC.
8.) Let me remind you as you say the WMU-NC is not going any where. Yes, they are. They are probably moving, I do not know, to First Baptist Raleigh? WMU-NC is leaving the BSC and the churches of North Carolina Baptist. They have abandoned their covenant with the churches by leaving the BSC.
9.) I can tell you that the voting body did not have any idea that WMU-NC was planning this move. You can say that it was not planned all you desire, but the steps that have brought us to this point announce otherwise. I can only tell you what the WMU Director in my church said to me. “How could the WMU-NC do this without notifying and getting input from us?”
10.) Let’s get honest with this one. The former Ex.Dir. never did because they did not fulfill their Human Resources responsibility. As for the Multicultural position, I am not understanding. Mrs. Linda Hicks, a fine Christian woman, fulfilled the duties as a consultant until her passing. If this position could have been maintained in a consultant situation, and if the convention has in place two positions that cover multicultural ministries, why could the WMU_NC take advantage of that resource?
11.) I am not conceding this point, I just feel it is not worth the effort to explain. Everyone knows, whenever you see the term “cooperative partner” we are speaking about a buzz word that means Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. As a matter of fact, Campbell University Divinity school is listed as a “Cooperative Partner” with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in order to be included in their budget. Christopher White Divinity School is not listed as a Cooperative Partner and thus do not receive budgeted funding from the CBF.
12.) Once again AWANA is the choice of the local church.
13.) You, as well as I, know this is not about the WMU-NC leaving the building. They are leaving the NC Baptist and refuse to be accountable to the level of accountability NC Churches have called for.
14.) I just want to understand what you are saying. Voting to change the relationship from “auxiliary” to “cooperative partner”, voting to take control from WMU-NC as a voting body to the WMU-NC Executive Committee, refusing to allow the Executive Director/Treasurer to have input into employees hired, and now contacting 75% of the WMU-NC Executive Committee by phone to vote to leave the BSC, is extending an olive branch?
15.) No one has questioned the Christian character or demeanor of anyone on the WMU-NC’s Leadership Team, or Executive Committee. I have not seen anyplace where anyone questions the devotion or character of these Godly Ladies. However, in this very comment you have charged the BSC’s Executive Director/Treasurer and Leadership Team with unethical behavior and being deceitful. You have even charged the Baptist Men with not disbursing funds to the areas they are advertising for the offerings.
Your last paragraph, as our friend volfan007 has pointed out, reveals that it is very evident the WMU-NC appears to be loosing their Baptist identity.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — August 27, 2007 @ 7;51 pm
[...] “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, [...]
Pingback by What has NC Conservatives Accomplished? « Southern Baptist In NC — August 29, 2007 @ 4;56 pm
This means the end of WMU-NC just as soon as the local churches fully understand what has happened. Good riddance!
Comment by John — September 2, 2007 @ 4;53 pm
Hello again brothers,
I haven’t had time to respond since I last commented, but I do think I need to qualify some of the things I said earlier and point out some other things in response to some of your comments. I am sorry I write so inconcisely. I hope you can forgive me for that.
First, I know you don’t understand my need to be anonymous, but if I explained that to you, I would probably not be anonymous, so I hope you can respect that.
I’ll respond point-by-point as you did, Tim.
1.) The “control or authority” issue. WMU is accountable to the churches. It always has been and always will be. You are correct, it is a church’s decision to have whatever programs they choose. I was more emphasizing that the BSC leadership has attempted to exert authority in hiring practices that is unprecedented. Seeing as how WMU is autonomous, as is AWANA, it seems that if the BSC expects to have authority in hiring WMU’s staff, perhaps they should try to do so when AWANA hires its staff.
2.) National WMU/CP funds. No, no one mentioned it here; I just mentioned it because it just comes up a lot.
3.) WMU offering promotion/support from CPMG. Research has shown that churches with WMU give significantly more to SBC offering than others who do not, so it is reasonable to believe the SBC/BSC would suffer financially if WMU did not promote its offerings. WMU is committed to promoting those offerings; that has not changed.
The $400K figure came from the BSC leadership; it is the “upper end” of the estimate. At any rate, now WMU will not be taking CPMG funds, so that will no longer be an issue of contention.
4.) Charges that no one can verify. I deliberately refrain from examples and names because I do not want to cause harm to any individual’s reputation. I just want to make the point that there have been some unkind things done to WMU and its leadership.
5.) Utililtarianism/press coverage. What seems to be the case to you is not the case. WMU-NC is doing what it believes God wants it to do because WMU is called to missions and that purpose is currently hampered and endangered by the BSC leadership. The effect of WMU-NC’s action on NC is that missions will be done with greater “quality and quantity”. WMU-NC is seeking after lost souls. As for press coverage, yes, there has been some positive reporting, but a great deal of what ought to have been included was left out and things that were included were often taken out of context. It’s the concept of telling the truth but not the whole truth, or relating it in ways that are misleading or confusing (whether intentionally or not, but I will not attempt to judge motives).
6.) NCMO promo. I don’t think everyone giving to NCMO knows how it is divided. Certainly there is at least one person in the state who doesn’t, so if that one person is misled, I think that makes having misleading promotional materials unacceptable.
7.) Milton Hollifield. I think he has probably been pressured in a lot of ways, and I think that has influenced some of his actions. He has always been kind to me as an individual, but I have seen him do things I did not believe he would do. I admire that he does personal witnessing when so many other leaders tell others to do it but do not do it themselves. I honestly wonder if Milton even wrote so many of the letters and press releases that are attributed to him, because when I interact with him as an individual, he does not come across as one who would say those things, especially the things that distort the reality of situations. As far as no one directing WMU-NC staff to leave the building goes… well, WMU didn’t really have much choice when they were denied the compromise they proposed. It was either give up and give in or take their chances out on their own. Given the potential negative consequences (to their mission of reaching lost souls as much as anything else) of giving up and in, it is reasonable that they should make the decision they did.
8.) WMU-NC going somewhere. We’ll just have to disagree on this point. Relocating offices doesn’t mean abandoning anyone. As I pointed out earlier, the BR relocated its offices. Did they abandon the BSC or the churches?
WMU has not abandoned its covenant with churches, if indeed you can argue one exists in more than an abstract sense. There is a tangible covenant WMU had with the BSC, though. You apparently know of the 1997 covenant. I ask, who abandoned that one? Is it not the BSC leadership?
9.) WMU voting body. The voting body is not required to be informed of by-laws amendment proposals prior to its annual meeting. The body could have rejected the proposal, and indeed some did vote against it, but the overwhelming majority of the body supported the change. The body was informed of the recommendation at Missions Extravaganza and they approved it. That is the way the system works, and if someone wants a “say” in it, they need to be sure they go to Missions Extravaganza.
10.) HR responsibility/Multicultural position. I’m not sure whether you’re saying the BSC Exec or WMU-NC didn’t fulfill their HR responsibility, but either way, the 1997 covenant states that WMU would remain autonomous and have independence in its hiring practices (as well as continue to be supported in a reasonable manner by the BSC).
Mrs. Hicks retired and then worked on a contract basis because of her declining health. This was so that she could continue in her ministry but would not be obligated to the 40-hour work week, etc. The other multicultural positions were created AFTER Linda’s death and after WMU-NC attempted to replace her (and was told they could not “create” such a multicultural position, even though the position already existed – i.e., they could not “create” a position that already existed, but they could create 2 or 3 others to perform a very similar function). In addition, those hired were men, and WMU’s multicultural ministry targets women rather than men. That ministry is suffering without a consultant. The male consultants are not able to minister to the women in the way that they need, and in some cases are not able to much at all because of the gender norms of other cultures. The women of the multicultural ministries in the state are crying for the female consultant position to be filled. It is vital to missions with women of other cultures in the state.
11.) “Cooperative parter” word. We’ll have to disagree on that as well. One more remark, though, WMU-NC was in CBFNC’s budget long before the discussion of terminology arose. Clearly that cannot be the primary motivation for the term.
12.) AWANA/choice of church. You are correct; AWANA is the choice of the church. I just wanted to point out that the WMU curriculum is not “leaving the Bible” as one brother said. I think you would find it actually has a lot of merit to it if you would approach it with an open mind.
13.) Leaving NC Baptists/accountability. Again, we’ll have to disagree. You can believe what you want, but you are not justified in holding that belief.
14.) Olive branch. No, those things are not the olive branch part, and some of them are not accurate descriptions of the truth either. Voting to change terms should have been a neutral action but was perceived otherwise by some. (Note that perceptions are not reliable sources of truth.) Voting to take control from the voting body to the Exec Board is not what happened so there is no need to elaborate. Refusing the BSC Exec to hire WMU employees, yes that happened, but with good reason and precedent. And as to the voting of 75% of the Exec Board: all the Exec Board was notified and those who did not participate either chose not to or had conflicts. It was necessary to meet via teleconference because had they not, the issue would have been further delayed till the next in-person meeting at the end of September. All those who desired to speak on the teleconference did so, and it’s not like they were unfamiliar with the issues at hand. Back to the olive branch part. The olive branch can be seen in the numerous times WMU-NC leadership has attempted to dialogue with the BSC leadership, has attempted to create a mutually positive compromise, has refrained from speaking ill of the BSC when the BSC leadership had supplied plenty of “ammo”, and so forth.
15.) “Character debate”. I realize no one has questioned it (at least on this blog); I merely wished to affirm it. These women have sought God’s will and believe they have made the right decision, and I hope that means something to you. I admit, I have charged the BSC leadership with unethical behavior. I know you have no reason to take my word for it because I choose not to reveal myself, but my charge is justified; however, as I have said before, I’m not going to name names and provide examples because I want to protect the individuals’ reputations. I only point these things out to put some things in perspective because the story is incomplete without such knowledge, however vague. It is foolish to make judgments about things when all of the information has not been weighed. Let me clarify one point, though. I have not accused Baptist Men of not disbursing funds appropriately. BM had nothing to do with the NCMO promo production. That was entirely done by the BSC PR department.
Finally, I’m not sure what the problem with WMU cooperating with Christ’s Body is. When we get to heaven, there will be no distinction between Baptists (Southern, Cooperative, Independent, Freewill, Missionary or otherwise) or Presbyterians or Methodists or any (authentically Christian) denomination. (Of course, you may say that they have the wrong theology and won’t make it to heaven, but I disagree; some of them have correct enough beliefs to qualify as born-again.) So, sure, WMU is not concerned about making a huge deal about its Baptist identity, though it by no means is abandoning it. WMU is concerned about its identity in Christ. It is far more biblical to cling to that identity than any denominational identity. You should agree. Is your first allegiance to the Southern Baptist denomination or to Christ? Likewise, is your first allegiance to the fulfillment of the Great Commission by all appropriate means or to the fulfillment of the Great Commission by the Southern Baptist denomination?
Surely you are not so prideful to think only Southern Baptists have their theology correct and therefore SBC missions is the only correct way to do missions. (I’ll prove that idea wrong quickly: if Southern Baptists are the only ones with the correct theology/correct way to do missions, then they should all agree on their theology with unanimity; since they do not, their theology cannot be entirely correct and therefore cannot be singularly correct.) I would argue WMU thinks that Baptist theology is the most right in that regard (as compared with other denominations’ theology), but we recognize that some people in other denominations are saved, and if they want to do missions and want our help, God forbid we refuse. That attitude comes from allegiance to Christ and His mission. Anything that honors Christ and promotes His mission is something we support, SBC or otherwise, because Christ supports Himself and His mission – and does so through more than just Southern Baptists.
Christ said He would build His Church. That is what WMU is about. Southern Baptists are only one part of His Church. We cooperate with Southern Baptists; we cooperate with the rest of the Body as well. There is nothing wrong with that. There is something right about it.
I pray you and I will seek to conform our minds to that of Christ, and perhaps one day this side of heaven we will agree on these things on account of it. I urge you to seek truth, whether it goes against what you want to believe or not. I strive to do the same (and it is not easy!
). Let us strive together to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Despite our disagreement, I believe you can be an instrument of grace and peace. I pray God will bless you and your ministry and give you great wisdom, courage and strength to do His work.
“Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, Who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.”
Jude 24-25 NKJV
Comment by idratherbeanonymous — September 14, 2007 @ 4;38 pm
One other comment – to brother John. Do you think Christ thinks getting rid of a missions organization is a “good riddance”?
Comment by idratherbeanonymous — September 14, 2007 @ 4;40 pm
idratherbeanonymous,
Let me begin by first acknowledging my concern that you remain anonymous but present issues that could really present your case better if your identity were known.
Because of the in-depth information you have given and I certainly would like to respond, I feel it better to just begin a new post. I will have a new post up by tomorrow on this issue and I believe we can better deal with the issues that way.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — September 14, 2007 @ 5;25 pm
Wow, how sad to read all of this! From an outsiders point of view, this seems like just misunderstandings all the way around! It really suprises me to read some hateful-sounding comments from the men here.
“John (16:53:19) :
This means the end of WMU-NC just as soon as the local churches fully understand what has happened. Good riddance!”
I was just web-surfing for some information for our next WMU meeting and came across this blog. I will definately pray for you all to be able to resolve the issues. It seems no one is being Christ-like. This has made me realize how blessed we are here in TN, as far as I know, the TBC and TN-WMU get along just fine.
I am sorry you all are going through this.
Comment by titus23thru5 — October 2, 2007 @ 8;20 pm
titus23thru5
Thank you for your prayers. Please continue to pray for us as we seek to honor Christ.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 3, 2007 @ 4;53 am
It seems to me that what WMU-NC did is like a wife moving out of the home that she and her husband have shared for years, while expecting him to respect her, love her and support her in her new apartment. She also took the kids and declared her autonomy. In fact her husband declared that she had always been autonomous.
Milton Hollifield’s letter of (no date given, postmarked 12/20/2007) stated, “BSCNC fully recognizes WMU’s autonomy but respectfully suggests that WMU should likewise recognize BSCNC’s autonomy and responsibility as employer of WMU staff” Common sense should tell everyone that WMU was not autonomous if BSCNC was responsible as employer of WMU staff.
I firmly believe that WMU should return and recognize that the only solution to the problem is that WMU be under the authority of BSCNC.
The wife should give up the apartment, bring the kids back and ask for forgiveness. The husband should forgive and the issue of autonomy should be resolved.
Comment by James Agnor — January 4, 2008 @ 11;35 am