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.
Well said. Thanks for being thorough and providing us a little bit of a roadmap into the situation.
Comment by Dave — October 17, 2007 @ 3;17 pm
Brother Dave,
It will be an interesting convention.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 17, 2007 @ 3;34 pm
“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.”
Tim,
You just can’t make that statement with a straight face. Fellowship Baptists are still very active in the life of your Baptist State Convention. As you’ve posted in the past, Fellowship Baptists can still designate their tithes to CBF Global Missions through YOUR Convention. So what exactly is the “theological center” in North Carolina.
As long as North Carolina Baptists are allowed to give money to CBF, your statement just doesn’t hold much weight. Now if you had your way and the CBF was excluded from North Carolina Baptist life then I would understand your argument. But that hasn’t happened. Clearly there is indeed a moderate presence in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. In all reality, the so-called “theological center” of North Carolina Baptists is much further to the Left than the “theological center” of the Southern Baptist Convention. And that says more about the SBC than the BSC-NC….
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — October 17, 2007 @ 6;34 pm
I’m back again.
You write: “It is clearly written in the Scripture that the interpretation of Scripture is not a private individual matter.”
Since Scripture is not a private individual matter – who interpreted 1 Peter 1:20 for you? Did you consult some Baptist Bishop or your spiritual master? Perhaps you got together with a group of believers and interpreted the verse as a community?
Ultimately the interpretation of Scripture has to be a private matter. If its not then why even own a Bible? What’s the point in reading the Good Book if I can’t interpret it on my own? Had it not been for the belief in private individual interpretation of Scriptue, Baptists would not exist. I think even James Sullivan contradicts your point. He seems to understan that we as Baptists must have a free soul or an unfettered conscience.
I hope you understand that in order to determine the meaning of the Scripture which is being read, we must first interpret that Scripture.
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — October 17, 2007 @ 6;51 pm
Brother BDW,
I knew I would give you fodder for your Moderate grist meal. :>) I will attempt to tackle your multiple comments of disagreements in this one comment.
First, I did have a straight face. While you are correct that the BSCNC has multiple giving plans, My voice began in the minority that these plans were not conducive with the theological center of BSCNC. Mine was a voice that was not heard neither was it one that was heeded. However, in the past couple of years my voice is now one of many that are saying the CBF is out of step with NC Baptist. If you want to see how much out of step they are notice this article. It seems CBF-NC is having their own convention during the BSCNC convention. Not only that but they have boon-doggled on the BSCNC expense to grab up a worship leader for their event. Also, as to the theological center being further left in the BSCNC than the SBC, I do not think I would agree with you on that one. From the election of Greg Mathis to the election of Stan Welch to the naming of Milton Holifield as Ex.Dir., the one cry that has come from the conservative leaders is we need to move more in line with the SBC.
Second, as to the private interpretation, you are free to interpret Scripture as you desire. That is called being Baptist. However, your conclusions from the Scripture are open to accountability with other Scripture. While there are some that would argue this point, let me ask. Did you ordain yourself, or did you go before the church and ask them to ordain you? Also, what would happen if you pulled some off-the-wall interpretation from Scripture and placed it in print? Would your off-the-wall interpretation be one that doctrine was built on, or would you be called on the issue and told to recant? One other thing. While I read the Scripture and interpret it privately, one must make certain that interpretation stands doctrinal scrutiny. We believe in the Priesthood of the Believer and the Autonomy of the local Church, but we do not believe that Believers and Churches are free to do anything they desire without fellowship consequences.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 17, 2007 @ 8;28 pm
I have some additional thoughts heading toward the convention Brother Tim. You mentioned that the CBF will hold part of their meeting at the same time as the BSCNC annual meeting on Nov. 13. If CBF is not a separate entity but we have a giving plan for them, they have a meeting apart from the BSC and have now decided to hold the meeting the same time as the BSC, what exactly is their organization? Everyone knows they are another Baptist group but no one wants to face the conflict for the sake of unity. When are we going to say enough is enough, have your own convention but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Also why haven’t we as a convention adopted the BF&M 2000 as our statement of faith? Why does it seem like we are scared to take a stand on the Word of God and for truth? When we continue to compromise for the sake of unity, we are burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problems will go away. What can we do to resolve this? Your thoughts?
Comment by mike mcgirt — October 17, 2007 @ 9;34 pm
Mike,
Excellent questions. Has anyone ever asked BSCNC to look at BFM2K and evaluate it as a statement of faith for the state convention? If not, wouldn’t that be a good motion for someone to make? It can’t be me because I’ll be in the exhibit hall the whole time promoting the small church conference.
BTW, have you registered yet?
Les
Comment by Les Puryear — October 17, 2007 @ 10;14 pm
I think BDW’s comments are correct IN THIS respect. He raises an important question about our “theological center.” I believe this is exactly what our convention is searching for. This has begun to be defined with the convention’s stand against homosexuality and other matters.
Personally, I think there have been efforts, whether intentional or not, to choose some of the foundational beliefs of which most logical thinking (I know, that might be considered a cheap shot toward some, but it’s not intended as such) NC Baptists can agree.
As to the BF and M, I don’t know if our convention is ready for such a step, but I do believe efforts have been made, or at least the realization for such a document/statement/whatever, to define some of our core beliefs. If it mirrors the BFandM, that’s fine. If it departs somewhat on some issues, that’s open for discussion, depending on the issue. But with some of those beliefs written out clearly, at least we can know where most people stand on some of the more basic and foundational tenents of our faith.
Concerning the CBF as a separate fellowship, I’m not real sure about at least 2 things:
1) Why are most of these churches still hanging around the BSC–they do indeed have a national convention replacing the SBC, and a state convention (CBF-NC) that stands in place of the BSC. It was my understanding that the main unstated reason many of the more active churches affiliated with the CBF who were staying with the BSC was largely due to the Annuity Board of the SBC. At that time there was no equivalent insurance or retirement services within CBF. Maybe that’s not correct and my understanding is misled, but that was always my impression in talking with some who were indeed in that situation.
2) This again could be dead wrong, and I don’t have it here in front of me and am not interested enough to look it up right now, but I believe that somewhere in the constitution of the BSC, there is a statement referring to our affiliations, where the SBC is mentioned, but not CBF. If this is the case, and again, this is a big if, plan C is unconstitutional. This may have been changed in recent years, but I’m pretty sure that this is there. For us to be in line with our constitution, either plan c needs to be gotten rid of or the constitution needs to change. If indeed we’re to support them, and this, I suppose is the “great debate,” our governing documents need to reflect this.
Comment by Dave — October 17, 2007 @ 10;34 pm
Brother Mike,
You make a great case for such a move. I want give you information that I have had to realize. The BSCNC, while being a large group of messengers from over 4000 church, is directed by a small group of people. Always has been and always will be. This group of people have always held a hard-line stance that operating outside of committee structure is taboo. Everything, though not in writing, must be decided by that committee. If something comes to the floor of the convention, it needs to be in the form of a study recommendation. By doing this it can be assigned to a committee and they will study it. That way this small group of people can direct it in the way the desire to see it move forward. (I am not trying to be discouraging or negative, but this is a fact of life that we have to live with.) A recommendation for a study committee is good for two reasons. First, it tells the current small group that you are not trying to hurt the BSCNC with your recommendation and they become more open to listen to the motion. Second, who is closed-minded enough to vote against studying a need?
Thus, if you want a motion like that to stand a chance, you need direct the President to form a committee that would work along side the ByLaws committee to study making the BF&M2K a part of our ByLaws and bring that report to the 2008 convention. Here is the chance you take with that approach. If the study committee rejects the idea, then you have a committee that has studied the issue and are in disagreement with this direction. It is then hard to get the fence straddling, don’t want to offend anyone, we must be open to everyone, Baptist to vote for doing something like that. Like it or not, but the Baptist I just described exists in big numbers within our convention.
Let me say up front that I am not part of that small group. As a matter of fact the former small group viewed me as an absolute idiot bent on tearing up the convention. That group would be considered moderate. There is now a new group that has moved into position and they now view me, and even paint me, as a crusader. This group is considered conservative. This group rose to prominence by maintaining the hard line stance that nothing gets passed at the convention without going through committee. To show you how hard line the stance is here is one example. In 2004 I made a recommendation that we remove $200k from the Biblical Recorder and re-direct it to Church Planting. I was openly chastised on the convention floor. I mean a temper tantrum chastisement. When the vote was taken the chair ruled that it did not have the 50% majority. Many on the platform told me that it was so close it should have been balloted. Even the then Ex.Dir. told me it probably would have passed if we would have balloted. The reason for the chastisement on the floor? I did not go through the committee.
Brother Les,
Sorry you will not be able to part of any of the votes. I pray your conference is a success. I am already registered. You made me sign-up for Paypal. :>)
Brother Dave,
I do not see your comment as a cheap shot. I am constantly astounded by the illogical answers in the various defenses of certain issues.
As to the BF&M, would you not agree that the study committee is the best route for Brother Mike to take?
You end your comment with two very good questions. To your first question, I am not sure that you presumption is correct. I do not believe the CBF churches are hanging around because of Guidestone (the Annuity Board). My belief is not as negatively leaning toward the churches. I believe it is the churches that is the reason for CBF-NC to continue in the BSCNC. IOW, NC churches are SB churches but they are pastored by pastors the are CBF. These CBF pastors cannot get the churches to move away from the BSCNC and for the sake of harmony the churches have allowed their pastor to lead only so far in this issue. Or the pastor does not agree with CBF, but has members that do and they support the CBF through their church and, once again, for the sake of harmony nothing pushed one way or the other within the church. However, the church will not leave the BSCNC or the SBC and we accommodate the churches wishes because of a fear of loosing them. That is my opinion and along with $2.50 you should be able to purchase a latte at Starbucks. :>)
Second, in 2001 I presented one of those study motions. The motion was to study the constitutionality of Plan “C”. I was never asked to sat on the committee but we had various lawyers from across the state sitting on it, plus a leading conservative as Chair of the committee. The result? Plan “C” does not violate the constitution.
You are correct the Bylaws call for support of SBC causes and says nothing about CBF causes. The lawyers read that part of the constitution as not limiting ministry to SBC only. I believe that we can direct the convention institutions not to receive funds from CBF. I do not know if the thing will pass but it would be an interesting motion to see debated.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 18, 2007 @ 5;22 am
Yeah, I remember when the motion about the constitutionality was considered. The results of the study committee felt bogus then and they still do. Either change our practice or change the constitution. Either way, but we’re just being dishonest with ourselves if we do not.
You also make a good point about CBF churches sticking it out with the BSC. Your point that these churches are led by CBF pastors, but aren’t necessarily CBF churches is accurate. Perhaps I misspoke when I stated that the main reason was Guidestone. What I should have said was this was one of the reasons. Going back to my college days at one of our illustrious institutions of higher learning, I was told by one of those instrumental in the early leadership of CBF that eventually there would be a split in the BSC, but they couldn’t right then because their pastors would lose their eligibility for Annuity Board services. Once CBF was able to get on its feet and establish some kind of equivalence, “churches would leave the BSC in mass numbers.” Anyway, that hasn’t happened–probably because of the reason you have given.
By the way, since you mention the Biblical Recorder, I was just wondering if I’m imagining things or if things seem to be a little better with the BR? Maybe I’m just being more optimistic than realistic, but it feels like there’s been a little more of swing toward at least congeniality toward conservatives and the SBC lately. There are still some leftward tendencies, but it just hasn’t seemed as anti SBC in recent months. Even more conservative churches have found their way to the classified adds. For several issues in a row, in fact, all of the churches placing adds mentioned that they were conservative SBC churches. This may indeed be coincidence, but it could also represent a bit of a culture shift at the heart of our convention. Am I imagining this, or have you noticed it as well? Maybe I’m just being hopeful, but I do wish Jameson the best–he’s a talented and likable guy who seems to represent the interests of our state convention well.
Comment by Dave — October 18, 2007 @ 7;17 am
Brother Dave,
As to the Biblical Recorder, there still is room for improvement. However, as I say that I find myself adding to the negative innuendo that continues to haunt the BR. Brother Norm Jameson is in, what I believe to be, a catch 22. He has a slight conservative majority on his BoT, but those trustees in leadership are moderate. He was placed there by moderates but the convention is clearly correcting herself with a right turn. He has been informed by conservatives that if he does not become more open toward SBC causes then his days will be short lived. He also has been informed by moderates that if he moves the BR into a more SBC friendly reporting status then his money will dry up. The main problem that he seems to have at the BR is how to navigate the rough waters before him. His funds come mainly from moderate supporters. Conservatives are named that for a reason, they are conservative. It seems that conservatives are waiting to see how he performs before instituting funding options. Problem with that is when conservatives do give it is minimal to begin with and then progresses as they build their trust. If we really desire to see the BR perform then we must subscribe church-wide. I am in the process of seeing what we can do at Yadkin about bringing the BR in for every member. If more conservatives would do that, then we would certainly see a huge difference in the reporting. However, the problem you still have is he has retained the moderate staff. There will continue to be pro-CBF, negative-SBC reporting as long as his current reporters remain in place.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 18, 2007 @ 7;50 am
“but we do not believe that Believers and Churches are free to do anything they desire without fellowship consequences.”
I don’t think any moderate that would disagree with that statement. As you said, we do have the individual right of private interpretation due to our free individual conscience. However, soul freedom, that most Baptists around the world recognize as the stackpole from which all of our other distinctives arise, demands both accountability and responsibility to our community of believers.
“There will continue to be pro-CBF, negative-SBC reporting as long as his current reporters remain in place. ”
So, what kind of reporting would you like to see? More pro-SBC and negative-CBF reporting? That would be PR not real journalism!
I do wonder how you see the Biblical Recorder as pro-anything? Most articles in the Baptist state papers are rather boring and bland. Do you mean the op-eds?
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — October 18, 2007 @ 12;31 pm
Brother BDW,
As you have stated before, I am blunt. I do not want to change the direction of this post, but I do want to ask one question. Are you trying to tell me that ABP gives journalistic reviews without bias?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — October 18, 2007 @ 1;16 pm