The late Rev. Ted Stone for years stood to the convention floor in North Carolina and made motion after motion to either remove Plan C (The Plan that excludes the SBC completely but is still counted as CP giving in NC) or go back to one giving plan. His last attempt was the convention the November before a heart attack ended his life while he was walking across North America to raise awareness of the drug problems facing our nation. Brother Ted stood courageously and many times unpopularly. It was at his last attempt that Brother CJ Bordeaux brought a message from Dr. Morris Chapman that basically placed Brother Ted’s statements as suspect concerning the giving plans. However, Brother Ted can now take credit that his hard work over the years has born fruit here in North Carolina.
North Carolina Baptist voted Wednesday during the budget discussion to remove Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as an option of the new giving plan. For years NCBSC had 4 giving plans and last year a motion was made by Dr. Scott Eanes for the Executive Committee to form a committee to study the giving plans as to their viability. The Study Committee was headed by Dr. Ed Yount from Conover. This committee had hardened conservative warriors along with hardened moderate warriors. However, they came to an agreement that the plan to present was one that included an option for churches that still wanted to support the CBF. This committee did their research and followed what they believed to be the direction God was leading. One thing they forgot to do. They forgot to tell the reason for leaving the CBF option available. The reason everyone was given centered mainly around the desire to stop fussing and fighting and a desire to do ministry together with someone that does not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Those were the reasons given around the convention hall as reported by the maker of the amendment.
It seemed the convention was going to get through a year without controversy. There were two scheduled miscellaneous business sessions where nothing came to the floor from the messengers. I am certain the leaders of the convention were walking on cloud nine this morning with the diverseness of the committee that was making the only controversial motion. This probably was a done deal in the minds of many. Even with Dr. CJ Bordeaux, a constant critic of Plan C and anything CBF in the past, speaking for the recommendation that included the option to be chosen, this motion was not going to pass that easily. Why?
I believe the reason was right before the eyes of the convention. I did not attend this year, so I do not know what the spirit was in the convention hall. However, just seeing this on live stream made me laugh at the simplicity by which this amendment passed. If I did not know better, I would be suspicious of the back room deal brokers. However, I know Rick Speas and I can assure you he went out of his way to make certian nothing of the sort happened. I also know members of the Study Committee and I can also assure you they kept this information close to their chest. None that I spoke with would even hint at what they were trying to accomplish. The reason this amendment passed is that NC Baptist are Southern Baptist they are not CBF Baptist. (This statement is something the Baptist General Convention of Texas would do well to heed.) NC Baptist are trying their best to say that we do not want anything to do with CBF. If there are churches that desire to be CBF then have at it. However, do not try to tell the world that you are Southern Baptist and be part of an organization that was organized as a result of being disgruntled with doctrines Southern Baptist believed and held dear.
What does this mean for BSCNC? It means that the churches that were bypassing the convention are now going to need to stop. It means that we are in this together and thus we need to support the budget together. I know the SBC has some fine agencies and I am in agreement that the SBC is who we support with our $$$’s. However, we do this through the State Convention. Not only does it mean we move our giving to go directly to the BSCNC, but we need to press our leaders on two other issues. First, we need leaders serving on the Executive Board that count the CP gifts as only those gifts going to the Cooperative Program. While I am a supporter of the IMB, by my giving directly to the IMB does not say that I am giving to the Cooperative Program. Our leaders need to go back and read the 1925 agreement made when the CP came into being. Second, we need people serving on the Board of Directors to come from churches that give at the very least 5% of their churches undesignated funds in CP giving. We need these leaders to stop short changing the convention especially when they are serving in a position to direct where the money is going. Let’s face it, there are churches that were part of the BSCNC for the sole reason that we were allowing their funds to flow through Cary straight to the CBF in Atlanta. These churches will stop funding through the convention and give to the CBF-NC, which by the way, has the same formula of giving that we used to call Plan C. Only difference is that the CBF-NC now retains the 64% not the BSCNC. So there will be a drop in giving so there needs to be an increase from conservative churches to help offset this drop.
Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC. We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF. We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church.
Well, there you have it. Certainly does seem to have been an interesting convention and I had nothing to do with that motion coming to the floor. However, I believe the late Rev. Ted Stone would be proud. Of course he is in a place now that budgets and who gives to whom has no concern for him. He is rejoicing around our Father’s throne. Let us now do the same. Go and expand the Kingdom of God–OUR CLARION CALL!!!
Tim:
I have waited and waited and have tried to keep myself from commenting. All I will say is if something like this where in you words–the CBF was removed and you think someone else would be proud, I would question your Baptistness. Who do you think should be removed or excluded next?
Comment by Tom Parker — November 13, 2008 @ 8;40 am
Brother Tom,
Convention of churches refusing to be a clearing house to divert funds to another non-profit organization is not “removing” someone. Churches are completely autonomous and can choose to send any portion of their budget they desire to the CBF. What NCBSC has said was that they would not be able to use it as Cooperative Program funds.
Once again, no one has said anyone is proud that someone removed. I said the late Ted Stone would be proud that the CBF was finally out of the budget of the BSCNC.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 13, 2008 @ 11;39 am
Hey, Tim. Thanks for your post. Hate you couldn’t be with us. I looked for you.
You can see my post on the same subject. I agree that the change was needed (and I voted for the amendment), but I felt such a heaviness of heart. I think many of us conservatives who have been in this fight for a while were both relieved and grieved.
Much love to you, brother. Hope to see you again soon.
- Andy
Comment by Andy Atkins — November 13, 2008 @ 11;44 am
Brother Andy,
It looked from the livestream that our leaders had more than just mixed emotions.
Good to hear from you.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 13, 2008 @ 12;51 pm
Tim:
How many people voted on this item? Was the vote timed for when there was the least amount of people there to vote on this issue? Was it even known this item was to be voted on the way it was?
Do you really not consider CBF Baptists, Baptists? If they are not, what are they?
Comment by Tom Parker — November 13, 2008 @ 2;44 pm
Tim:
You said–”Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC. We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF. We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church.”
Maybe you can make the phone call. I would would want you to get all of the credit for destroying innocent people’s lives in the loss of their livelihoods. Maybe you can get all of this done before this Christmas.
I want to put you in charge of the face to face firing of the people that just might be working in the head offices in Cary that are affiliated with a CBF church–even if it is just one person. I want you to tell these people they will have to change churches or lose their jobs.
I think the bounds of the need for power and control has no bounds for you and others. I ask again are you really a Baptist?
You have no shame do you? And yes I am angry as I am typing this to you.
You and others that feel the way you do will find others to exclude in the future.
Maybe one day some of these friends of yours that support you today will exclude you and then you can see how it feels.
Enjoy your job while others that read your piece have to think about what will happen to their jobs.
Comment by Tom Parker — November 13, 2008 @ 3;30 pm
Brother Tom,
By your comment #5 it is obvious that you are very unaware of how the NCSBC works. Wednesday is historically known for low attendance. I served on the Preacher, Program, and Place Committee from 2002-2005. I remember the planning sessions for the convention and they were planned in such a way to keep people around on Wednesdays. Conservatives have tried for years to move the budget vote to Tuesdays, but to no avail, because the Moderates wanted it on Wednesdays becuase it was more of them on Wednesdays than on other days. Most Conservatives are from small churches and cannot afford in their church budgets the expenses needed for an extra day. Thus a Wednesday vote of approximately 800 messengers is not something that concerns anyone.
As to your anger in the comment #6. Please do not be angry. We have called for years here in NC that employees of the BSCNC should be in churches that are aligned with the BSCNC. With the vote on Wednesday, the BSCNC has a clear call that CBF Baptists are not who we are.
Maybe you can make the phone call. I would would want you to get all of the credit for destroying innocent people’s lives in the loss of their livelihoods. You give me too much credit. No one has said anything about destroying innocent people’s lives. I am merely saying that if one works for the BSCNC and is attending a church that supports CBF, then something must be done about either, employment or church membership. If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 13, 2008 @ 4;11 pm
I was there, and I will say this. Nobody I talked to saw this coming. I am certain that if people had known that this amendment would happen, there would have been many more in attendance.
I was also in the listening session. There were approximately 30 people in there including the committee.
I walked into the listening session prepared to not support the one plan because to me it seemed to accomplish nothing. But coming out it seemed clear that it would vastly simplify the process for the church treasurers and the accountants at the BSCNC. Even leaving the listening session I had no allusion that the CBF would be removed from the plan. I am certain that this move was not planned by the committee. They were absolutely unified.
When the amendment was brought forth, I was genuinely torn. My heart was with the amendment, but I knew that fi it passed, it would pretty much settle the issue in the minds of the CBFers and they would be done with the convention. That is no thing to do lightly. I voted for it, and I’m glad I did. But of the 4 people sitting around me, all with similar theological leanings, it was a tie.
Please don’t think this was some carefully orchestrated plan. Though in reality the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.
You can read my post about it http://jmmath.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/big-news-at-the-bscnc/
but there is nothing there that is not in this comment
Comment by Jeremy — November 13, 2008 @ 5;08 pm
Tim:
Last comment to you. You say “If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.”
You are deluded my friend. You are 100% wrong. May God forgive you for the people’s lives you are going to effect with this change. I really do want you to be a part of firing these people so that you can see the effect you are having on these people’s lives. But by your quote above, you could care less. I see no Christ in your brand of Christianity.
I will not say that I wish you well in what you are doing. It is wrong!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Tom Parker — November 13, 2008 @ 6;08 pm
Tom,
Are you being paid by Farmer Wade to torment conservatives? Seriously, you need to realize you do not know the history of what has and is taking place in North Carolina.
Read the comment of Andy Atkins above. As the years go by it is in the words of that young man that you will find the true hearts of most conservatives. Those who “left” the SBC and started the various groups, including the CBF, left with the intent of seeing the SBC fall. It did not happen. The SBC was shaken. It has made mistakes. Yet, it is still here. And do you know why, Tom?
Because men and women made a commitment to the Word of God as completely true and accurate in all things and for all things. Yeah, those NC conservatives are weary and grieved, but they had to stand and stand they did.
I am proud of Andy for his comment. I well understand what he means. I also know you have Tim all wrong.
I had thought you were older than you must be for you would not necessarily have taken this position had you been around for a while in SBC life. I have read some of your comments around and believe you to desire the truth. At the same time I see you do not know our history very well. It has been a long road for those who hold to a high view of Scripture. I think you also hold a high view of Scripture. You need to get to know this side of the tracks a little better before you charge Tim to be without a heart. Stay away from Wade’s Farm for a while and read some other guys. It will do you good.
cb
Comment by cb scott — November 13, 2008 @ 7;54 pm
Thanks for the post Tim. Anyone who couldn’t see this coming either moderate or conservative obviously has been asleep the last ten years. Some have planned to make this motion to remove Plan C for years but have been asked by leadership and other conservatives not to. The problem isn’t an issue of moderate or conservative, it’s an issue of the authority of God’s Word. If we can’t agree the Bible isn’t the inerrant, infallible, inspired authoritative Word of God either moderate or conservative and start there in unity, where else do we have to go? I don’t worship the Word but the Lord Jesus Christ. But here’s a question, where do you learn about Jesus? In the pages of the Bible! It’s either all true or it’s all false but it can’t be both. Heck, Tim, I’m so naive I didn’t know there were other Baptists who didn’t believe the Bible until I tried to enroll at Campbell Divinity School and was asked if I believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, to which I replied of course, don’t you? And the interviewing committee of professors said not without the original manuscripts. So this is an issue the SBC settled long ago and the BSCNC settled Wednesday morning. The convention’s messengers spoke loudly that we will stand for the Word of God and anyone that won’t has the privilege to align themselves with another denomination. That’s the beauty of Baptist life. Now it’s time for us to step up and preach the Gospel and win people to Jesus.
Comment by preacherman — November 13, 2008 @ 8;18 pm
I am in TX not NC, Of course in Tx we have two separate state conventions – the BGCT which met this week and voted David Lowerie – son of DL Lowerie as president. David has been very vocal about moving the BGCT closer to the SBC. Randall Everett the new executive director of the BGCT spoke in the SWBTS chapel last week (great sermon – it is on the SWBTS website) I see good things happening in TX that will help the vast majority that are theologically conservative who stayed in the BGCT to continue to stay – or at worst dually align with the SBTC.
I hate that NC seems to be following the MO lead for division instead of unity, good people will be hurt.
Under the new giving plan in NC what is to keep a church from designating part of thier offerings (whatever is currently going to the CBF, directly to the CBF) – then send NC 100% of the remainder. Those churches can still accomplish thier goal of helping to fund the CBF w/o affecting the relationship with NCB convention
Comment by Jim Champion — November 14, 2008 @ 11;02 am
Brother Jim,
Under the new giving plan in NC what is to keep a church from designating part of thier offerings (whatever is currently going to the CBF, directly to the CBF) – then send NC 100% of the remainder. Those churches can still accomplish thier goal of helping to fund the CBF w/o affecting the relationship with NCB convention
Great insight. That is our point exactly, as conservatives. The problem is that some pastors, it is believed, lead their churches to choose the Plan C giving without the entire body being aware of it. These are the pastors that are still with the BSCNC and are complaining about the new direction.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 14, 2008 @ 12;22 pm
Tim:
What do you recommend for Alabama where the likely next president of the BAma SBC, Jimmy Jackson, has apparently backed down from a move in his Home Huntsville, Madison County Association to remove all churches in that have women in leadership roles.
It looks that will gut the Associational Budget by 30%
Should they gut the association or should Jackson standy by his BFM 2000 convictions.
Comment by Stephen Fox — November 18, 2008 @ 3;44 pm
Brother Fox,
I am not sure what they do in Alabama is appropriate to this discussion here.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 19, 2008 @ 6;11 am
I am a bit confused as to your suggestions concerning employees of the BSCNC. As I understood your comment, you would suggest that employees who attend a church who is not fully SBC should be removed. (you cleverly stated that they should change churches, but I am read your implication that if they do not, they should be removed) Yet, in your response to Jim (great insight), you seem to applaud Churches who help fund CBF. It seems a bit disingenuous to fire employees because of their allegiance to churches that you encourage (with great insight)to continue giving to both. This is the same duality that is found in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that seems to disavow imposing credalism on churches but creates no barrier to imposing it on individual seminary students and other individuals.
Comment by Tom Jordan — November 19, 2008 @ 2;34 pm
Tim,
You have answered Stephen Fox well. North Carolina is not Alabama and Mr. Fox does not represent the typical Alabama Baptist.
He is a liberal and to the far left of most Alabama Baptists. He would be far more at home in the BGAV.
cb
Comment by cb scott — November 20, 2008 @ 8;26 pm
CB:
Are you ok with Tim Rogers saying the following“If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.”
Tim is saying move your church membership or lose your job. That is heartless to me!!
CB I will give you the benefit of the doubt but it appears in your comment to me that you are attacking me or attempting to insult me. I have a mind of my own and know how to use it. You come across to me as someone who has very strong convictions. I have always tried to allow you your positions and not to attack you when we disagree. Please allow me the same treatment.
I’m pretty up on SBC history and just do not interpret it the way you do.
Comment by Tom Parker — November 20, 2008 @ 10;12 pm
Tom,
Just take to heart what I said in comment #10. I did not attack you, nor did I insult you. I simply sought to advise you in relation to what you were saying to Tim.
If you want an example of me insulting someone, read my comment to Stephen Fox.
cb
Comment by cb scott — November 21, 2008 @ 5;49 pm
CB:
Are you ok with Tim Rogers saying the following“If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.”
Tim is saying move your church membership or lose your job. That is heartless to me!!
I really would welcome your agreement or disagreement with Tim’s statement.
Comment by Tom Parker — November 22, 2008 @ 12;11 am
Brother Tom,
If you are going to ascribe something to me that I have said, please state what I have said. I have not said, “move your membership or lose your job”. I have said that if you desire to work for the NCBSC, then you should not be part of a church that does everything it can to work against the NCBSC.
Thanks for your interaction.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 22, 2008 @ 9;14 am
Brother Tom,
One more thing. You may try to respond that churches with the CBF do not try to work against the NCBSC. WRONG!!!
NC-CBF has an alternative budget plan that is exactly like the former Plan C except with their pet projects within NC. Also, the CBF has their own “Mission Offering” and guess when they promote it? During the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. One other thing. The NC-WMU–THE GROUP THAT CHOSE TO LEAVE THE BSCNC–has released their magazine. Guess what offering they are promoting–the CBF offering. It seems that the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering is not on their priority list any longer.
So, before you begin casting stones against statements you presume of me making, make certain that you know the facts behind my statements.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 22, 2008 @ 9;20 am
Tim:
You are the one twisting the meaning of words–you said to me in this very blog–”If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.”
Please tell me did you make the above statement? A simple yes or no.
Let me see–It sure sounds to me that you are saying–if a person does not change their church membership they lose their job. Maybe you did not use those exact words–but that is what you are saying.
If you are not saying this please tell me what you meant by the above statement.
You have no shame for what you are saying and yet I am the one that is in the wrong according to you.
I’ve yet to see anyone come to the defense of what you said—-”If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.”, but maybe they will show up.
The BSCNC keeps getting smaller and smaller–who will be next to “not get kicked out.”
Comment by Tom Parker — November 22, 2008 @ 12;39 pm
Brother Tom,
No one has “kicked out” anyone. People choose to leave for whatever their reasons are.
”If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.” If a church’s administrative assistant is a member of another church and the church decides that they want their administrative assistants to be members of their church, then the administrative assistant has a choice to make. No one can say the church is “kicking out” administrative assistants. However, if an administrative assistant decides to go against the direction because she believes it is wrong, then she has made a decision. Her decision is that she decides that the church does not have the proper authority, or intellect to make such a decision.
That is what has happened. Your very argument has been centered completely around one suggestion that I have made. The convention made the decision to remove the option and you have openly stated over on Jeremy’s blog that it was a shame that Matt Williamson could get a vote on the convention floor, because he was new in the convention.
I am merely saying that if the convention calls for allegiance to the convention, then some people need to re-examine their church membership.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 22, 2008 @ 5;50 pm
Tim:
I give up. You said–”If a person desires church membership over employment, then that is their choice. No one is kicking anyone out of anything.” That is a real funny way to not kick them out.
That you or others would try to put someone in that position is heartless and not Christ like.
Prediction–others will be placed in this position in the future by people like yourself.
Also please point out were you found the following comment you say was made by me–”and you have openly stated over on Jeremy’s blog that it was a shame that Matt Williamson could get a vote on the convention floor, because he was new in the convention.” Why would I even say that because based on the facts whoever brought up this motion would have gotten the same results. I did not make that comment and do not know who did. I don’t know Matt Williamson at all or have ever said any thing at all about him getting a vote on the convention floor. I do not know a Jeremy’s blog. Someone is trying to paint me in a very bad light. I’m not going to get caught up in these games.
You want so much to distance yourself from what you said and want to make it about me. Maybe to you it is a game. I aint playing.
Comment by Tom Parker — November 22, 2008 @ 7;01 pm
Tim,
Tom obviously has nothing better to do but try to take your words out of context, not a big suprise since a lot CBF folks do the same with scripture, so if I were you I would accept the fact that you,Tim, are 100% correct and that Tom needs a hobby. Thanks Tim for taking a stand on what you believe. I stand with you and stand on the idea that Jesus did not tollerate sin and neither should we. The scripture says to “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”, so do the Christian thing and don’t have anything else to do with him.
Comment by Eric — November 22, 2008 @ 7;20 pm
Tom,
I will answer your question for myself.
If you are a person who wnats to work for a Southern Baptist entity, national, state or local; you should be a member in good standing with a church that can agree with the principles,polity and practice of the SBC. If you are part of a church that cannot support the SBC, then by all means, find employment with the organizations to which your church can agree or find another church which is in agreement with the SBC if you want to work for one of our entities.
I think that is fair. Actully it is the only fair and honorable thing to do if one is going to receive his living from a SBC entity don’t you think?
cb
Comment by cb scott — November 23, 2008 @ 12;46 am
My church continues, and I think in the true Baptist polity, to welcome members who would support the SBC and members who support the CBF. We will allow direct contributions to both and will set our bookkeeping programs to allow this. The bigger picture is, however, that we as Baptists are keeping our fellowship open and nurturing, both for weaker and stronger Christians. Paul addressed this directly in Romans 14 and 15. I can assure you that the issue he addressed concerning food was considered no less important the the legalistics in that congregation than our legalistics in the SBC consider women in the ministry, inerrancy, etc. I believe that Paul had it right and the true Baptists have expounded on his writings to correctly generalize the principle to present day congregations. This is an example of local autonomous churches with “big tent” and I would argue Christian love. Perhaps our organizations should consider this approach.
Comment by Tom Jordan — November 25, 2008 @ 10;36 am
Brother Tom,
Your comment; My church continues, and I think in the true Baptist polity, to welcome members who would support the SBC and members who support the CBF. We will allow direct contributions to both and will set our bookkeeping programs to allow this. is something I will agree 100% with and will stand and crow like a rooster as the sun rises for your church’s right to do such a thing. I will defend your church’s right and argue against anyone that desires to take that right away from your church. The autonomy of the local church is a cherished Baptist principle that I believe is verified in Scripture. Your application of Romans 14 & 15 to Women in Ministry and inerrancy, I believe is a little suspect, but that is your right to believe that way and your privilege as a local church to advocate such a position.
However, as Baptist, others do not believe that way and when churches come together in the convention and vote in the way that a majority of churches believe, I will also defend their rights to believe and vote such a way.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 25, 2008 @ 12;56 pm
Tom,
I agree with Tim’s sentiments here. You church can welcome whomever it desires. The subject is those who receive a salary from SBC entities. Do not confuse a local church with the SBC. The SBC is not a church.
Also, if you think the CBF would let you draw a check from them and only support the SBC, you are greatly mistaken.
cb
Comment by cb scott — November 26, 2008 @ 10;05 am