NC Baptist State Convention–You should Go There!

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.

Is it Time?

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.

Looking at Fact or Fiction

Mrs. Ruby Fulbright has posted a response to much of the back-and-forth that we find ourselves facing during these days leading up to our North Carolina Baptist State Convention. I met Mrs. Fulbright at the East Taylorsville Baptist Church meeting and found her to be very friendly and engaging. She engaged me as a gracious Christian lady as well as one that stands on what she believes. I believe that she loves Jesus and desires service for Him. I happen to disagree with her on the issues before us, and while she has much more insight into the particulars of these events, I have found her responses to be lacking in clarity.

I have copied her position taken directly from the WMU-NC website. I have responded to the areas that I understand to be the case.

• The Gossip: WMU NC is leaving or resigning from the Convention.
• The Truth: There is nothing that WMU has said or written that would indicate that we are leaving the Convention. Our decision to relocate our offices is not a departure from our commitment to supporting and promoting missions through the BSC. We intend to continue working with all churches and associations; we intend to keep praying for, promoting and supporting the offerings, as well as providing missions education resources and training. We are only changing the location of our office.
• My Response: It seems that while the WMU-NC desires us to believe that they are not leaving the Convention, we still perceive it differently. The reasons? First, they are moving out of the building because they say they do not desire to be a liability for the Convention. However, they are going to need approximately $400 thousand from the churches for what they receive at the Baptist Building at no cost. This means that the first $400 thousand that comes from the churches to the WMU-NC is for administrative costs. Second, while they desire to continue to pray for, and promote the offerings, Mrs Fulbright has made it abundantly clear that they desire to partner with other denominations and para church organizations that do not hold to the same theological center as North Carolina Baptist. Thus, if they leave the Baptist Building they become more free to partner with organizations that promote theological positions that North Carolina Baptist would soundly defeat. If moving from the Baptist Building gives one more autonomy, which in this case the WMU-NC has clearly stated it will, then one is leaving the NCBSC. It is the same as the CBF-NC withholding their contributions to the SBC but still saying they are Southern Baptist.
  

• The Gossip: WMU NC will have no accountability.
• The Truth: First and foremost, WMU NC has never been under anyone’s authority except the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And, WMU NC has a very good system of accountability. As a grass-roots organization, WMU NC is accountable to you, our WMU members. WMU NC Staff is accountable to the WMU NC Executive Board. This Board is made up of five officers, 2 members from each of the 10 regions in the state plus 5 additional members. These board members are elected each year at our annual meeting in the spring. The Executive Board has several administrative committees that make sure the organization operates according to its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, that personnel are “doing their jobs” and that all finances are in order.
• My Response: WMU-NC is under the authority of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. No one has ever denied that and that has never been the question. The question that has been evaded time and again is how the WMU-NC is accountable to the churches. While the WMU is organized and functions in a society format, the WMU-NC has always been accountable to the churches through there auxiliary relationship with the NCBSC. The churches allowed the WMU to collect funds because they knew the ladies in the church and the WMU-NC organization carried with it the auxiliary relationship with the NCBSC. In the historical relationship the way the NCBSC goes, so goes the WMU-NC. This veil of accountability is nothing more than the WMU-NC desiring to be closer connected to the CBF than with the NCBSC. Accountability is the key here. WMU-NC has made it abundantly clear that they are accountable to themselves and no one else. Dr. Roy Smith, in his failed attempt to say otherwise, admitted that while he was Executive Director/Treasurer he still signed off on new employees the WMU-NC brought on board. They have always been accountable to the BSCNC.

• The Gossip: WMU NC wants to hire those who would be less than Christian in their lifestyle and witness.
• The Truth: We have not changed the way we search for, examine and elect staff. We are extremely cautious when it comes to staff, both in the office and at Camp Mundo Vista. We want staff that are called by God, committed to Him and the task to which He has called them, who understand God’s heart for the world and desire to follow Him by accepting the challenge of the Great Commission.
• My Response: First, I have never heard this said. I do know that a question was raised at the meeting that Mrs. Fulbright and leaders from other Baptist Universities along with WMU-NC leaders attended. The question posed was if she moved from the present hiring status (getting Ex.Dir. to sign) what assurance would NC Baptist have that they would not hire someone from these other denominations? It was presented that these other denominations that Mrs. Fullbright acknowledged a desire for WMU-NC to be working with, would not take Biblical stands concerning homosexualilty. Mrs. Fulbright never answered that they would not hire someone that viewed themselves as a Christian but was engaged in a homosexual relationship. She only said that at present they do not have anyone working in the WMU-NC that would consider themselves homosexual. Do not take my word for her lack of clarity, notice her response above to the very question she designed and says is gossip. What assurance does one have that the WMU-NC will not hire someone that is “less than Christian in their lifestyle and witness”? She only says the WMU-NC desires to hire people with the desires she has spelled out. Let me break it down. A person can say; “I am called by God, I am committed to Him and the task to which He has called me, I understand God’s heart for the world and I desire to follow Him by accepting the challenge of the Great Commission and I am a lesbian in a committed relationship. According to Mrs. Fulbright’s guidelines she will be able to hire the person without violating any principles she has spelled out.

• The Gossip: WMU NC doesn’t follow the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and “believes” in women preachers.
• The Truth: WMU NC does not have a public stance on the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message or on women preachers. That is not our purpose for being nor our business, really. One of the things that Southern Baptists do say they believe is in the Priesthood of the Believer and the Autonomy of the Local Church. Those two beliefs indicate that who God calls and to what God calls them is an individual decision. And, each church must decide for herself what she wants to affirm or not to affirm. WMU NC does have as one of its core values to recognize the giftedness of women and girls and accept the responsibility to help them use their gifts in serving Christ.
• My Response: Mrs. Fulbright’s understanding, or lack thereof, of the Priesthood of the Believer and the Autonomy of the Local Church completely negates 1 Peter 1:20. It is clearly written in the Scripture that the interpretation of Scripture is not a private individual matter. While each church does decide for herself whether the one called is in accordance to Scripture it is still Scripture that is the basis for the decision. Dr. James Sullivan, in his book Baptist Polity said;

Two Theological beliefs undergird every decision Southern Baptists have made about polity: the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local congregation. Because we as Baptists believe these are clearly set forth in Scriptures, we are forbidden ever to violate the conscience of an individual believer or seek to coerce the members of an individual church.

This means that while we beleive in the priesthood of the believer we do not coerce one another to believe the way we believe. We believe the way we do based on Scripture.

Do I feel the WMU-NC should adopt the BF&M2k for their doctrinal position? Not unless the BSCNC does so. And even if that happens the WMU-NC must make their decision based on their conviction. However, if it is revealed that their conviction is different, then the BSCNC should reassess this relationship as an auxiliary. Thus, this item does not concern me. The proper response would be for the BSCNC to advance a doctrinal position and then watch the WMU-NC to see if they would follow. Of course Mrs. Fullbright could not adopt the BF&M2k because of the point that women, according to Southern Baptist as a whole, believe Scripture limits women from being ordained as Senior Pastors.

• More Truth: It was clear from the beginning that WMU was a missions organization that believed women could lead the way in the local church in missions activity and missions giving. When you read the history of WMU you see evidence of how our leaders shaped and guided the work of this organization that, at various times, could have splintered and lost its missions purpose.
• My Response: It is true that the history of the WMU proves how women lead the way in the local church in missions giving. You can talk to Dr. Roy Smith and you will hear about women selling chicken eggs in order support missions. There are some great stories of sacrifice in giving of time and income that it will bring tears to your eyes. However, note with me how they did this. It was through the local church, through the local association, through the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, through the Southern Baptist Convention. While we are not connected in polity (each entity is autonomous of the other) we are connected in heart. The WMU-NC moving in this direction is a movement to divide the heart of North Carolina Baptist.

Pastors and Job Security

If you are going into the ministry for job security just stop right there. Dr. Jerry Sutton has survived a vote of confidence at Two Rivers Baptist Church located in Nashville, Tennessee. See story here. Why is this such a shock for a pastor. Dr. Sutton is not a new comer to the church that began making changes as fast as he could. Dr. Sutton has been at this place of ministry for over 20 years!  This serves for me as a lesson that God is where I place my security.

What is a Prophet?

When posting my last article concerning the Homemaking Degree at SWBTS, I got side-tracked by a comment concerning the definition of a prophet of God. Brother Les Puryear began this rabbit chase with the following statement:

Please tell me that your last paragraph does not mean that Paige Patterson is always right and those who don’t think so don’t believe the Bible. Please correct my misunderstanding about what you are saying. Please!

Les

His reference was to a comment that I made as a concluding statement concerning Dr. Patterson’s leading in establishing this degree. My concluding remark is as follows:

Well, all I can say is that Dr. Paige Patterson is a true prophet according to Scripture. Therefore, if you have any gripes about Dr. Patterson not being a true prophet and you say you believe the Bible, then take it up with God. But if you do not believe that Dr. Patterson is a true prophet, then you have just told the world that you believe the Bible, but…..

The concern that Brother Les raised was not that much of a concern for me due to the past differences that he and I have had. I knew that Brother Les and I have had, and maintain, ongoing differences concerning different doctrines and personalities within SBC life. However, what caused me more concern and is the real reason for this article, comes more with the comments from others.

First, I will admit that if you take that comment out of the context of the article you have a basis for the questions from Brother Les. I must admit that I do not understand the basis but it is possible for one to read what they would like into that last paragraph. However, you must look at the entire article along with the concluding statement.

Second, there was a statement made by my, always lurking while looking for a weakness to pounce, Brother Aaron Weaver (aka Big Daddy Weave; B Diddy). He stated;

Like Les said, as it stands the paragraph does indeed suggest that The Prophet Paige, Peace Be Upon Him, is always right and those who dare dissent just need to read their Bible’s again.

Once again, if that statement were made by itself, I would understand such a response, but the statement is in context of the Homemaking degree being on the cutting edge of education. Even, my Brother BDW gives me the benefit of the doubt.

Having said all of this let us look at a Biblical understanding of the Prophets. Is there a basic understanding that a Prophet was always right in everything he/she did or said? The answer to that would be a resounding no! There has never been any instance in the Old or New Testament that a Prophet was 100% correct in everything he/she did or said. One cannot find Scripture to support that line of thinking without doing hermeneutic gymnastics. What one can find Scripture to support is the Prophet’s voice of direction, when ordained by the True God, will come to fruition. If the Prophet spoke and said it was of God and did not come to fruition, then it was revealed to be a false prophecy. If the person continually gave false direction that he/she said came from God, then they were revealed as a false Prophet.

Also, one needs to remember that during Old Testament and New Testament times, the cannon was not closed. Thus, God was continuing to give new revelation. How did He give this new revelation? Through the Prophets. This is the reason for the Deuteronomy 18 and 1 John 4 guidelines concerning the discernment between true and false revelation. The question at hand concerns the overview of these passages. Do these passages mean that everything a prophet says is scripture? Or, do they mean that the only time a prophet speaks saying it is coming from God, then it is scriptural? I submit to you it means the latter. Do these passages mean that since the cannon is closed then we no longer have the gift of prophecy today? Leaving the continuationist and cessassionist arguments aside, suffice it to say that it is rare that a cessassionist has to argue for the continuation of a gift against some that have professed to be continuationist. But, suffice it also to say, that while I do believe the office of Prophet is no longer needed, the principle of the Prophet is still very much needed.

However, some have tried to paint me as saying in my last article that Dr. Patterson is above criticism and is infallible. Something I have never said. The Prophets of Scripture were mere mortal men and women that were fallible and prone to the same temptations as you and I. Being referenced as a prophet did not mean that you attained any mystical status with no sin in your life. As I read the Bible I am drawn to the fact that the reason these prophets were not considered prophets in their day was for the reason they were not in any mystical sense different. Many viewed the pagan prophets in mystical sense and thus the children of Israel had to be given the guidelines before they went into the Promised Land. You can look throughout scripture to find many Prophets of God that had huge failures. Jonah is one that comes to mind. Also, if I needed advice on how to raise children Eli would not be a Prophet I would choose for that kind of council. Furthermore, I do not believe you will find in the Bible any place that Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Malachi, or any other prophet was without sin and did in fact sin and make various mistakes. But when God spoke through the Prophet, or the Prophet spoke for God, whichever semantic you chose to use, it was proven to be truthful.

Therefore, in my last post I do not intend to change anything that was written. For the simple reason that I have not expressed what some are trying to say that I have expressed. As I said, if you desire to pull that last paragraph away from the post and try to make it stand alone, be my guest. That is not what I am saying. However, if you keep the paragraph attached to the post, then you have to admit that Dr. Patterson has stated he believes God has led in beginning this course because there is a huge need for it in the society from which we are getting our students. Now the secular world has affirmed this truth so Dr. Patterson, no doubt, is hearing from God concerning the need. When the secular world addresses a need that is rampant among today’s society, they are lauded as being on the cutting edge. When the Christian world tries to address the same need that is rampant in the Christian community, the ones leading the way are maligned as backwards and stuck in the 1950’s. Go figure!

Dr. Paige Patterson has proven to be a Prophet addressing a need in a non-profit world. What a refreshing wind that is blowing out of SWBTS. Dr. Patterson is speaking prophetically the direction that he senses the Holy Spirit of God is leading him and not responding to the negative issues that come out trying to derail his vision.

Dr. Paige Patterson–Prophet of the One True God or False Prophet?

The Bible gives us guides as to how we may determine a false prophet. In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 the Bible says; “You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a message the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the Lord’s name, and the message does not come true or is not fulfilled, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Which brings me to Dr. Patterson.Dr. Paige Patterson is a visionary and a prophet of God. Everyone knows the stands he took and the shots he endured during the Conservative Resurgence.

Thus, everyone knows that he can see a direction that he believes God is leading and he knows how to lead us down that road. Dr. Patterson has made it abundantly clear during the question period of his SWBTS Report in San Antonio that he believes a degree that specializes in Homemaking is needed in the life of Southern Baptist today. He has been painted in a very disparaging way over his conviction. However, Dr. Patterson has openly stated that we are living in a day when the family and the home has been neglected.  I have whole-heartedly supported him in his leadership at SWBTS. So, can you imagine my surprised delight as I picked up my local news paper and saw this headline? “A BRAND NEW DAY: Home Economics classes get more specific and more popular“

What backwoods Baptist preacher has infiltrated another of our elite SBC seminaries with his complimentarian ideology and his literalist theology? Oh, my dear reader, this is not a SBC Seminary. This is a public high school here in the town where I minister.
Read the article that I have linked above and you will find that our public school system seems to be concerned that we are turning out young ladies that do not know how to sew. How archaic can one get? What difference does it make whether the young ladies that graduate know how to sew or even cook? As you peruse the article you will find that the most popular courses offered are Foods I (how to plan and cook a meal) along with Apparel Development (sewing, shut my mouth) and Early Childhood (raising children).

Mr. Steve Hill the Executive Director of Secondary/Career and Technical Education for Iredell-Statesville Schools, gives us (as my bombastic Baptist Brother Ben would say) the money quote: “It’s important we graduate students who have a well-rounded basic education and it’s important they’ve had an opportunity to explore careers they may be interested in.”

Well, all I can say is that Dr. Paige Patterson is a true prophet according to Scripture. Therefore, if you have any gripes about Dr. Patterson not being a true prophet and you say you believe the Bible, then take it up with God. But if you do not believe that Dr. Patterson is a true prophet, then you have just told the world that you believe the Bible, but…..

Midwestern–Wounded by Friendly Fire?

In military circles the term “friendly fire” is used when comrades in arms get caught in an unintentional crossfire and end up getting wounded or even killed by shots intended for the enemy, but the bullets are from one of their own. Many casualties in war come from “friendly fire”. These casualties are sometimes proven to be incidental, but other times it is proven to be intentional. Either way, whether incidental or intentional, there is a wound inflicted and death is possible. In the times it is proven to be incidental the soldier is given refresher training on how to avoid future incidents. When it is proven to be intentional the soldier is reprimanded and charged with the crime.

This brings me to the latest incident at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I was preparing to enroll in the D. Min. program there, but have placed everything on hold until I can see where this issue is headed. The chairman of the board of trustees appears to have seriously violated his responsibilities. If the news reports are correct (three sources report the same thing here here and here) then Mr. Gene Downing has seriously violated his position. From Baptist Press please note this report and Mr. Downing’s quote.

Downing said Roberts had not followed directives from trustees on March 19 and July 9 which stipulated that he “let [Hodge] do his job. He [Roberts] didn’t.” Downing said he asked Hodge for a confidential review for the trustee executive committee of various facets of the seminary’s operations, such as its strategic plan and a “game plan” for how funds would be used from a recent sale of a parcel of MBTS property.

Allow me to just elaborate on this one quote. First, Mr. Downing freely discusses “personnel” issues he has with Dr. Phil Roberts in the press. Mr. Downing states that the trustees issued directives to Dr. Roberts and they have not been followed-up by the President. THESE ARE PERSONNEL ISSUES!!! These issues are to be spoken about before the board of trustees and only there in Executive Session. Any discussion of personnel issues outside of the trustee meetings I believe you will find are a violation of trusteeship.

Second, Mr. Downing instructed Mr. Hodge to put together a “confidential review”, it seems, of Mr. Hodge’s opinion pertaining to the strategic plan implemented by Dr. Roberts and also a “game plan” about how the funds from a recent sale of land should be used. Once again Mr. Downing has violated his role as a trustee. As trustees there is only one employee they direct–the president. No one at any of our seminaries works for the trustees. There are reports issued by employees to trustees, but the trustees employ only one person. Also, Mr. Downing requested Mr. Hodge to keep this report confidential from the President.

Another SERIOUS violation of his role as a trustee and even his role as chairman of the board: The board of trustees cannot micro-manage. Dr. Roberts must have freedom to lead. If employees of the seminary are not happy with the direction or items are not to their liking there is a grievance process to be followed. Any trustee meeting with employees of the seminary is in serious violation of his/her trusteeship. That is the purpose of the grievance process. Once an employee violates that process and goes to a trustee, it is the trustees’ responsibility to direct that employee to the grievance process.

Allow me to produce some facts that are clearly seen. First, Mr. Hodge has been an employee at the seminary for 5 months. Second, because of his banking expertise he was hired as VP of Business Services. Mr. Hodge certainly has the credentials to fulfill the “bean counting” duties that were assigned to him. However, I question his desire to see the seminary succeed. Mr. Hodge is a contributor to a political action committee (PAC). What one does on their own time is their business. However, I ask: Why would David Hodge contribute to a banking PAC under his previous employers position? Here Mr. Hodge is listed as of 8/31/07 as a contributor and he is listed as “David Hodge, Central Bank & Trust Co., Hutchinson.” Also, Mr. Hodge has not moved to the Kansas City area. What is his commitment to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? He was asked by Mr. Downing to give direction to a plan that calls for second-guessing the president, when Mr. Hodge will not even relocate to the area. These facts give the perception that Mr. Hodge was only there to advance his status in some way. As a new employee of 5 months how does Mr. Downing develop such a cozy relationship with Mr. Hodge that he feels comfortable asking Mr. Hodge to violate a known employee/employer confidence? These two men are business savvy and both know these actions in the business world will send an organization into anarchy.

Here are the facts. Dr. Phil Roberts is a human being. As a human being he makes mistakes. Both Mr. Downing and Mr. Hodge have asserted that nothing has been done in any underhanded, devious way by Dr. Roberts. Mr. Hodge has stated, “there were no financial improprieties at the school and that Southern Baptists can have full confidence in the seminary.” This statement assures Dr. Roberts’ integrity in the financial dealings of the Seminary.

Also, the Seminary has increased in full-time equivalents (FTE’s) by 63% since 2001. The last president was released and it appears now the seminary is entertaining the idea of releasing another. Systemic? I do not know. If it is systemic then it lies in the Board of Trustees. But, what can be so terrible at MBTS that the chairman of the board of trustees calls for a confidential assessment? There is no evidence of mishandling of funds on the part of the president.

Dr. Roberts and MBTS, it seems, has been wounded and this wound was inflicted by friendly fire. The job before the trustees now should be to find out if this friendly fire was intentional or incidental. If it was incidental, simply the result of someone not understanding their role and thus over-stepping boundaries, then the trustees need to deal with it and make certain everyone knows the boundaries. If it is proven to be intentional, then the trustees should bring a recommendation to the SBC in Indianapolis that the individual trustees responsible be removed so that MBTS can return to fulfilling her vision.

A Motion For North Carolina To Consider

Many current divisions within the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (NCBSC) are, some believe, accentuated by the giving plans. In North Carolina we have four giving plans. Plan “A” is the traditional giving plan that an overwhelming majority of the churches give. Plan “B” is a plan set up just like Plan “A” except it gives only 10% to SBC and allows giving to moderate causes. Plan “C” is a plan that is set up to give the same amount to NCSBC except the rest goes to moderate causes and 10% is sent to CBF. Plan “D” is set up to give to only 50% to the NCBSC and the remainder to the SBC and other identified conservative causes.

Plan “A” was developed and put in place in 1993. It was at this time that a giving plan was presented to the convention that allowed churches to give to other organizations such as Baptist World Alliance, Associated Baptist Press, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and the Baptist Center of Ethics. A funny thing happened at that convention. It seems the North Carolina Baptist Men invited Jerry Clower to speak at the Baptist Men’s organizational meeting. The recommendation that year was publicized as taking money from the Cooperative Program. Mr. Clower was asked to address the convention and in his address he mentioned that he was brought up to support the Cooperative Program. Needless to say that speech did not set well with moderates. Dr. Corts was a leading conservative pastor in North Carolina and was the driving force behind the formation of Carolina Conservative Baptist. Dr. Corts knew the political landscape so well that he knew rejecting anything on the convention floor coming from a Budget Committee in North Carolina was a certainty for failure. He met with and received consensus from Dr. Roy Smith to present an amendment to the motion. Dr. Smith was at that time the Executive Director/Treasurer of the NCSBC. Dr. Corts presented the amendment and it passed. That was on Tuesday afternoon and on Wednesday morning I was in a restaurant and listened to a leading moderate lament the lose of that motion to the conservatives. This leading moderate complained that someone had gotten to Mr Clower and it was preposterous that politics was so prevelant. It was the pot calling the kettle black because this moderate was one that was leading behind the scenes in the proposition of this extra giving plan. Everyone left that convention knowing we have dodged a huge bullet and retained one giving plan. That is, until we read the Biblical Recorder. North Carolina Baptist found out from their state paper that due to a technical glitch in the wording of the amendment, we now had two giving plans. That plan not only allows giving to moderate causes as listed above, but also reduces the giving to SBC causes to 10%. It is known as Plan B.

Plan C is a plan that came on the back of Plan B . It seems that the conservatives had a bit of a division as a result of the wording glitch and it took some time for us to work through that issue. Plan C totally removes SBC causes and gives directely to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). It is this plan that says to the world North Carolina is a convention that supports the CBF. Once the conservatives regained their center, it was placed before the convention about another giving plan. This giving plan appeals to more conservatives as it allows for extra money to go to Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute and it cuts that amount going to the North Carolina Baptist Schools. This plan is known as Plan D.

Thus, in North Carolina we have four giving plans. The late Ted Stone for years has been pushing for a consolidation of one plan. Brother Ted knew his stuff and was not afraid to speak about that which he knew. He was the consummate politician and he also had a heart for those found in addiction. I know that it was not uncommon for Brother Ted to get out of the bed at 2am and drive for miles to get someone that called in need. He would give of himself and his money to help others. Brother Ted did not loose that passion when it came to calling for one giving plan in North Carolina. His last attempt was the 2005 North Carolina convention before his death in 2006 and the motion did not fail by much.

You may ask why I am in agreement with going back to one giving plan? Isn’t it obvious? We have had one institution after another desiring to go on their own. Our Baptist Retirement Homes has had their portion of the budget placed in escrow and the President has stated that they did not need the money. This is a far cry from their argument at the convention that we were taking money out of these retired persons pockets. Which brings me to another question. Who is taking money out of the pockets of these retired people? The convention because they desire to hold the President accountable, or the now self-perpetuating Board of Trustees that voted to give the President a rather large raise the very first year they elected their own trustees? One other thing about the Baptist Retirement Homes. It would be very interesting to see if that raise was in the range of 6 figures.  Also, has anyone compared the income of President of NC Baptist Retirement Homes to other non-profit Retirement Home Presidents? But I digress.

This is just one example of where multiple giving plans can lead. If you look at the Baptist General Convention Texas you will see how accountability is lost when everyone is able to to “what is right in their own eyes.” With one Giving Plan the level of accountability remains intact. Another reason, and the main one, for one Giving Plan relates to the church. In a church we would never give the congregation multiple giving options. We present one budget because we are united in our mission. Anytime more than one giving plan is presented it is fodder for the grist mill of disunity.

Therefore, unless someone else desires, I plan to make the following motion;

I move that our President form a committee that will work in conjunction with our Budget Committee to study the current giving plans and recommend to the 2008 convention a consolidated budget that will retain our current goals of increase for the Southern Baptist Convention and also retain the giving percentage for Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute, International Mission Partnerships, North Carolina Home Missions Projects and Guidestone Adopt-An-Annuitant (NC Pastors) that reflects today’s various plans current amount.

How does One Grow?

I once served in a ministry setting that was very cost conscious on everything that we did. Whenever there was a project that would be proposed, I would always have to present how the project would, first of all pay for itself, and second, add growth to the church. As we expanded some became concerned because budgetary needs were becoming tight. Do not get me wrong, we never fell below budget, it would get to a point that we were not able to perform projects at a certain time. When these financial restraints would present themselves one member of the Finance Committee would always look at the outreach projects and try to cut them to save money. I would always respond that cutting outreach would cut the income. If we are going to increase income we must expand and if we do not expand then the income will be cut. It is a vicious cycle.

Which brings me to this situation. I desire to look at this situation for the merits of the issue and not from any personal biased point of view. I admit my bias as I do not agree with Baptist General Convention Texas (BGCT) as they have taken several steps to hurt the SBC and thus their relationship to the SBC is strained at best. The BGCT makes it very clear they are not in favor of the direction of the SBC and are more in favor with the direction of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). However, I believe they are Godly people who lead and make decisions in that organization.

Others have been critical of the moves. These others were once involved in the leadership of the BGCT and have made it clear that they love the BGCT but they disagree with Dr. Charles Wade. Some others have called into question the true nature of Valleygate. It seems that Valleygate will not go away as the BGCT has authorized an internal audit in an apparent attempt to gain knowledge about all that happened. Also, since that million $ debacle some have began to question the leadership of the BGCT on everything. You can read other’s take on the budgetary situation here here and here. Also you can see how other issues, such as partnerships, are being questioned here and here.

My question deals particularly with the rationale behind this move. In the press release from the BGCT one is given the names and positions of the program staff being eliminated. In this list you will note that10 of the 12 program staff positions being eliminated are coming from the Missions-Evangelism-Ministry Team. It has been reported by Dr. Rick Davis that this lay-off is a revenge of Dr. Wade for those in this area of ministry being critical of his leadership. I do not know why Mission, Evangelism and Ministry Team (MEM) was chosen to take such a large number of hits but there is one thing for certain. There are 12 positions being eliminated and 10 come from the area of the convention organization that is charged with supplying resources for churches to grow thus the BGCT to grow.

With these lay-offs and the rationale of lack of funds comes a factor that no one seems to notice. Program staff positions are being eliminated and thus the support staff of these positions are not longer essential. There are 29 positions being eliminated all together. Twelve of these positions are program staff, that means that seventeen of these positions supported twelve. Let’s look at this from a church perspective. I go to my Personnel Committee and tell them that I want to add a full-time staff person. It will cost approximately $40k for salary and benefits for this person, but we also need to account for the support staff needed to look after this person and help make this position successful. The Personnel Committee responds with questions concerning this support staff person. Well it will not take one person but one full-time and one 1/4 time person. You know what will happen as good as I.

Why does it take more support persons to enable staff to operate than it takes staff people to perform the task? When one gets into denominational leadership does one lose his/her ability to contact people on their own? With the technological advancements we have today, what exactly do support staff do? I know that at SBC Seminary’s there are support staff for the work needed to be accomplished. However, I also know that the Professors share secretaries. You may call the seminary and ask to speak to two differenent Professors and end up speaking to the same person because that person is the support staff for these two Professors.

I have never worked in a denominational position so I do desire to be cautious in my assessment. Whatever the reasons behind the decisions to lay-off these program staff and support personnel is completely in the hands of those making these decisions. However, if the BGCT desires to shore up the gaping hole that they feel the money is escaping, reducing the MEM is a sure way to reduce new funding.

First Jax Pastors Conference

I just received my package today from First Baptist Jacksonville Pastor’s Conference. I am getting my bags packed and placing this conference on my schedule. Please take note of the line-up of speakers. What an excellent time to be a Southern Baptist.