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.
I will support that motion.
Les
Comment by Les Puryear — October 4, 2007 @ 9;39 pm
I think something like this probably has a good chance of passing. The main opposition to a united giving plan has come from the colleges. I remember sitting in classes each year before the convention hearing preached over and over again…Vote for plan C. Plan B was OK if you had to compromise, but to them, Plan C was the big cahoona (If that’s even a word!). The rationale was that the schools needed the money. It was presented as if professors would be laid off, students would lose scholarships, and the schools would be left in financial ruin if plan c were cut. Clearly, judging from their current efforts to elect their own trustees and thus, forgoe much of plan b and c money, other priorities rule the day. Suddenly, they are in such good financial standing that they really don’t need CP funds, afterall (Following the lead of the Retirement Homes, I’m sure). The motivation behind the opposition is no longer relevant. I’m sure others will find other reasons just in the nick of time, but I suspect conservatives will be paying a little closer attention than they did in 1993. God bless!
Comment by Dave — October 4, 2007 @ 11;22 pm
Brother Les,
Pray that this recommendation passes Roberts Rules protocol.
Brother Dave,
Something many people forget. The late Dr. Norman Wiggins, a godly man, was very insightful and had great discernment when it comes to predicting how people react. He presented a motion on year on Wednesday that would have broke the back of the convention financially. The motion passed and the ExCom had to work closely with him to come to a consensus. Thus, now in Plans “A”, “B”, & “C” we have 16% of the Budget going to Colleges and Universities. Can you say $6 Million? This we are told goes to supply scholarships. How can one place take a $1 Million hit? They certainly have had to place these funds in an escrow account someplace drawing interest. Isn’t it interesting that across North Carolina you hear; “we are about missions and education”. Have you noticed the Missions Growth Evangelism line item? 6%! We do seem to take more pride in educating than we do in reaching.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 5, 2007 @ 5;01 am
To All,
Do not take my word for it. Look at the Budget.
http://www.ncbaptist.org/fileadmin/groups/pr_rd/teams/CPMG/documents/CPMGBudgetColor2007.pdf
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 5, 2007 @ 5;03 am
Yes sir–and that’s exactly the point. I can’t speak for all of the schools, but since you mention Norman Wiggins, I think it’s pretty safe to say he was the king of fundraising. I don’t know what it was about him, but he seemed to attract large donors, and he taught his staff to do the same. I know Chowan has had some lean years and possibly some of the others, but Campbell certainly didn’t. Much of the fundraising was earmarked for some special project, but the fact remains, they are a fundraising machine.
Concerning the $1 million that supposedly goes to scholarships–that’s just inconceivable that all of that would go to scholarships. Let’s do a little quick math–and I’m sure this isn’t the whole picture, but perhaps a little of it. NC Baptist students enrolled in a religion degree automatically get (or so it was 10 or 12 years ago) something like $500 to $1000 per semester. I think it was more on the 500 side, but because my memory is fuzzy, let’s figure high just in case. At that time, there were probably 50 or 60 religion majors. Again, let’s figure 100 just for fun. At this amount, that comes to $100,000 per semester, or $200,000 per year.
In the divinity school, students at that time got-I believe-somewhere around $200 per semester hour. This was done in order to be competitive with Southeastern and other seminaries and came out to roughly half the cost of tuition, and again, went to NC Baptist students. Assuming the average semester load at 16 hours, this comes to $3200 per student per semester. At that time, there were at most 50 students who met the NC Baptist qualification (really, there were only about 50 students total). This may have changed, but probably not too significantly. Let’s figure 75 to be safe, but I think that’s probably significantly higher than the actual number.
The total cost of scholarships comes to $240,000 per semester or $480,000 per year. Add the two figures of undergrad and graduate together, and the figure is $580,000, which leaves almost half of the allotted money from the BSC. I am sure there are other students who receive scholarship money from the BSC and perhaps the figures have changed in the last 10 years, but that’s still a hefty amount for scholarships. Your post from above also failed to consider the additional 10.9% from plans b and c and the additional .75% going outside of NC. Needless to say, education is well funded and I’m not sure we’re getting much bang for our buck given the current direction of our schools.
Again, Campbell may be the exception to the rule, but I really don’t there would be a huge difficulty for the school to replace the BSC scholarship money with their own funds. It probably won’t happen due to budgetary priorities, but then the cynic in me comes out. All of this has also failed to consider the amount given to the schools through the CBF, and I don’t really want to get into that.
My suggestion for your resolution, and I am sure you know more than I do, so take this with a grain of salt, would be to try to go through some of the channels at the BSC if possible. Perhaps there is someone who could advise you, not on the merits, but on the protocol. I might also try to contact some of the members of the Board of Directors of may be sympathetic to the cause.
Comment by Dave — October 5, 2007 @ 7;40 am
Tim,
You make a very thoughtful presentation. Many would argue, however, that having options increases unity, not dissent, because it allows more people/churches to continue to cooperate in the overall Convention work. The budget committee retains the four giving plans for 2008-09, which is wise. Regarding the option of reducing the number of plans by one or more, Larry Burns, budget committee chair, said during his presentation to the board, “These things have a way of working themselves out.”
Comment by Norman — October 5, 2007 @ 7;58 am
Brother Dave,
I am at present, trying to get in touch with someone that can give me direction as to how not to violate protocol in presenting this motion. I believe I can present it during the Misc. Bus on Tuesday. If not then I know I can present it on Wednesday when we discuss the Budget.
Let’s look at your scenario. I am going out on a limb here because I do not have exact numbers and am only striving to present numbers of relevance. Take Campbell University. They have a Divinity School and a Religion Department. Let’s say they average 300 students who are majoring in Religion. IOW, when they receive their degree it will come from the Religion Dept. Second, lets say the Divinity School averages 200 FTE. That is an average enrollment of 500 students that will divide $1 Million in funds, each year mind you. This computes to $2k per student per year. Campbell is one of the largest of our NC Baptist Universities. Can you imagine what this $1Million computes to per students at one of our smaller universities?
Brother Norm,
You write; “Many would argue, however, that having options increases unity, not dissent, because it allows more people/churches to continue to cooperate in the overall Convention work.” I do not disagree that many argue that point. However, I do disagree that it is a valid argument. Notice this report from the Biblical Recorder in January 2007 concerning closing out 2006.
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2007/01_10_2007/ne100107bsc.shtml
The decline in giving came in Plans “B” & “C”. Thus the argument that more plans means more increased giving is not valid. The increase came in the plans that promote the same not plans that promote different giving.
As for the Budget Committee they cannot do anything that is not directed for them to do by the convention. Thus, they will not present a reduced plan of giving unless they get a clear directive from the convention. Could the Budget Committee recommend to the convention that we return to one giving plan. I believe it is in their realm to make such a recommendation. Does the Budget Committee as a whole have the intestinal fortitude to make such a recommendation? No, I do not believe they do. (This is not a slam against the committee. I believe everyone in the NCBSC understands they are to serve at the directive of the convention) The Budget Committee is charged with “Shall study, formulate, and recommend the budget for the support of all programs funded by the Convention;”. Some would argue that if a recommendation comes from the Budget Committee then they are not fulfilling their duties to “recommend the budget for the support of all programs funded by the Convention”. I can understand that and that is the very reason I believe this needs to come from the floor but it also needs to be done where the Budget Committee has input into the final version.
Now, as to Brother Larry Burns statement. Was that his response when he was asked if the Budget Committee was planning to reduce the Giving Plans?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 5, 2007 @ 9;25 am
Bro. Tim,
I’ve got a better motion. Let’s move to go back to one giving plan. If it comes up for us to vote on, it will pass. It would probably be close, but it would pass. I’d be willing to do it. What do you think?
Comment by mike mcgirt — October 8, 2007 @ 10;04 pm
Brother Mike,
I agree with you. I want us to go back to one giving plan also. At the same time I do not know what ministries that would be hurt by such a swift decision. The Budget Committee works hard all year to present to us the budget. I certainly do not desire to undermine their work. I also know that certain budgets contain certain items that would be drastically affected but vote to go back to one giving plan. One such item that comes to mind is Fruitland. They are receiving 5% of Plan D’s income. If we go back to one giving plan we certainly would want to retain that amount.
Because of the aforementioned issues, I believe, it would be best to have a committee that would work with the Budget Committee in order to present a unified giving plan that would consolidate the best of the four giving plans into one. While I like Plan D I also like plan A. I do not care much for Plan B and certainly do not appreciate Plan C. However, I am open to allowing the convention to make this decision, but I do not want the convention to make another decision like she did when Dr. Wiggins presented a motion that would break her financial back.
One other thing. This year it is a two-year Budget presentation. I believe a motion to return to a one year budget until this committee could complete its work would be advantageous to your concern. What do you think?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 9, 2007 @ 3;50 am
Bro. Tim,
With the plans as they are, a church can exclude up to two entities and can forward their 5% to Fruitland or the ministry of their choice. I agree I would never want any of our ministries to suffer, but we should have never added so many giving plans to begin with. Plan C is unconstitutional at best and those in the CBF should pull out and become total CBF churches. I am all for unity but to say we will take anyone and everyone it doesn’t matter what you do or believe, I have a huge problem with that. Here’s one other thought: If the schools are wanting to elect their own trustees, why do we need to continue funding them for four more years? If they are electing their own, and they already are, then let’s cut that funding and give it to church planting or ministries in line with the BSC and SBC. Just my thoughts, of course. MIKE
Comment by mike mcgirt — October 9, 2007 @ 3;50 pm
Brother Mike,
You and I are barking up the same tree, we just are on opposite sides of the tree. I tell you what. Contact me at my email address and I will get you more information along with some other thoughts.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 9, 2007 @ 7;17 pm