Surry Baptist Association Votes to Dis-fellowship a Member Church

Posted: August 8, 2011 in Associations, Baptist, Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Bloggers, Church, Doctrine, Uncategorized

In recent days we have seen the blogs light up over a vote by a North Carolina Baptist Association to dis-fellowship one of its member churches.  The vote to withdraw fellowship is a very serious matter and one that should not be taken lightly.  The action of this association has drawn many articles in the news and also on the blogs.  The Baptist news agencies coverage can be found here and here. The various blogs that I have seen covering this issue can be found here, here, here, here, and here.  What is truly amazing to me is the lack of coverage over at the Baptist Life forum and also on my favorite Moderate’s blog, The BigDaddyWeave.  However, something else has surprised me concerning this issue.

I called Dr. Billy Blakley and received his permission to post this on my blog. In my conversation with him he expressed to me that no blogger has contacted his office and this comes after we had a blogger express his ethical guidelines. However, he posted about this issue without even contacting the DOM and even admitted as much in his article.  Here you will find the Association’s official response concerning this situation. Below you will find this same letter composed by the Association’s Vice-Moderator for their church.  He gave Dr. Blakley permission to use it as the Association’s response to this issue.

The following article is written by Dr. Joel Stephens, pastor of Westfield Baptist Church and Vice-Moderator of the SBA, and by Rev. Jim Richland, associate pastor of Westfield Baptist Church and chairman of the Membership Committee of the SBA. Since it explains the rationale and the biblical basis for the motion made to remove fellowship with Flat Rock Baptist Church, I want to share the article with all our Surry Baptist members.

This month, due to a situation that has developed in another church within the Surry Baptist Association (SBA), your pastors felt it necessary to write a joint article to address the situation and how it may affect our Association and our congregation. The situation is as follows: Flat Rock Baptist Church of Mount Airy voted to call a new pastor who happens to be a female. Many within the Surry Association feel that this action is unbiblical, and we agree.

The role of women within the church is a complex, broad, and hotly disputed issue. Our newsletter forum does not provide adequate space to deal with this subject exhaustively. But there are some basic issues that need to be addressed. In order to address these issues, it is absolutely necessary to investigate the Scriptures that relate to it without taking those verses out of context and therefore arriving at a faulty interpretation.

The primary verses that address the gender of pastors are found in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 which says, “I [Paul] do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” The issue in these verses is what it means “to teach or to have authority over.” Again, context is essential. Beginning in 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul is explaining the appropriate behavior of men and women respectively in the church. This discussion continues on into chapter 3 of 1 Timothy where the qualifications of pastors (“overseers”) and deacons are listed. It is clear from the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 that Paul intends to lay out the parameters of who should oversee the teaching in the church; and that those who oversee the teaching in a local church (i.e. the pastors) should be men.[1]

Some object to this because of emotion. They know female pastors in other denominations who are kind and knowledgeable, and who work hard to care for the churches that have employed them. With due respect to all, especially to those ladies who are genuinely trying to do what they think is right, our opinions and feelings cannot be allowed to overrule what God has said in His Word. After all, our feelings and plans are untrustworthy because we are sinful (see Proverbs 16:25, Jeremiah 17:5-9).

Some object to limiting the office of pastor to men because of a feeble view of Scripture. They may say, “That was just Paul‟s opinion,” or “Our culture is more advanced and more sophisticated that it was then.” This causes them to ignore certain teachings in the Bible and cling to those verses that don‟t offend their biases. But the fact of the matter is that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Because the Holy Spirit superintended what Paul wrote, it carries the same authority as the words of Jesus Himself, because they all have God as their ultimate Source. If we begin discarding certain verses that we don‟t like, where does that stop? If we can‟t trust 1 Timothy 2:12, then what makes us confident that we can trust John 3:16? “All Scripture” means “all Scripture.”

Some object by stating that Paul‟s prohibition of women as pastors was based upon the cultural situation of the day: that women were excluded from education or subdued by a male-dominated society. Again, context is the key. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 clearly explains why Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, limited the office of pastor to men. Those verses say, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” The first word (“For”) means “because.” Paul‟s reasoning (ultimately the Holy Spirit‟s reasoning) for limiting the office of pastor to men had to do with God‟s design in the order of Creation. This divine design transcends all cultures or social realities; it is a timeless, universal truth.

Some object by pointing to various biblical characters and popular female teachers today. “What about Deborah in Judges 4?” The role of women in civilian government is not the issue; it‟s the role of pastors that we are concerned with here. “What about Philip‟s four daughters who were „prophetesses‟ (see Acts 21:8-9)?” “What about Beth Moore or Anne Graham Lotz?” Beth Moore and Anne Graham Lotz both have powerful ministries that God is obviously blessing (as He certainly did for Philip‟s daughters). „What can women preach about,‟ „which women can preach,‟ and „who can women preach to‟ are all questions that Scripture does not answer directly. Our newsletter does not lend itself to a full treatment of that issue. Furthermore, preaching (in general) and pastoring a local church are not the same. While preaching is certainly one of the main duties of any pastor, a person can preach without being a pastor (e.g. an evangelist). The office of pastor also carries with it the responsibility of overseeing the doctrinal purity of the church as well as overseeing the spiritual lives of the members of that congregation. The Bible may not answer all our questions with respect to women-preachers, but when it comes to women-pastors, the Bible is clear: it is not scriptural for a woman “to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12, English Standard Version).

Still others object to limiting the role of pastor to men because of a faulty interpretation of other verses of Scripture. Usually this group will quote Galatians 3:28 (out of context): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Obviously they lay hold to the phrase “there is neither male nor female…in Christ Jesus” and hijack this verse to preclude any distinctions in gender roles. However, an honest unbiased reading of the context surrounding Galatians 3:28 leaves the reader with the inescapable conclusion that the writer is addressing the issue of salvation, not gender roles in the church. In other words, Paul is saying that Jews are no more saved than Gentiles, and slaves are no less saved than free persons, and that men and women are on equal standing at the foot of the Cross of Christ Jesus.[2]

So, if women are not supposed to be pastors, what can they do? The God-given roles for women in the church are numerous and absolutely indispensable! Women can lead prayers in church (see 1 Corinthians 11:1-16).[3] Women are commanded to teach other women in the church (see Titus 2:3-5). Just like the men, women are to give, go on mission trips, pray, encourage, serve, etc. The women of the church have diverse opportunities for kingdom service and their contributions are absolutely essential. Nevertheless, where God has placed a limit, we must respect His design and submit ourselves to His authority.

Sadly, those in leadership at Flat Rock Baptist Church have chosen a different path. As you may have heard, the Surry Baptist Association‟s Membership Committee invited the leadership of Flat Rock to meet to discuss this situation. Flat Rock refused their invitation and thereby closed the door on any reconciliation with the Association. For that reason, a motion was presented to the messengers of the Surry Baptist Association last Monday to withdraw the SBA‟s affiliation with Flat Rock Baptist Church. The motion passed by a very large majority.

One of the major tenets of “being Baptist” is something called autonomy. Autonomy literally means “self-governing.” That means that Flat Rock Baptist Church is not under any earthly authority. They cannot be told what to do by any other congregation, by the Surry Baptist Association, or by any other denominational organization. They must make their own decisions based on their convictions about the teachings of Scripture. But, so must the churches of the Surry Baptist Association. When two parties cannot agree on basic issues, it often becomes necessary to no longer associate with one another. This does not mean that we should treat one another harshly or spitefully. But sadly, there are times when parties must go their separate ways because they no longer agree on essential issues.

But please understand: withdrawing our fellowship with Flat Rock Baptist Church was never the goal! Restoration to doctrinal purity and a renewed sense of unity in the churches of our Association were our goals. Unity must always be one of our highest priorities; but it must never eclipse the priority of doctrinal purity. Unity is extremely important, but if we sacrifice biblical truth in order to have unity, in the end we will have neither.

It is important to remember that while Flat Rock‟s actions have been unbiblical, our response to those actions and to their members and leaders must never become unbiblical (see Galatians 6:1-3; Matthew 18:15-17). Pray for them daily. Pray that others within our Association will handle themselves with Christ-like love. Pray that the membership of Flat Rock will be convicted to correct their error. Pray for the lady elected as Flat Rock‟s pastor, and for her young family. Pray for our Director of Missions, Dr. Billy Blakley.

May God grant us supernatural wisdom with which to restore the strained relationships between the churches that remain in our Association. And may Christ have His way with His Church “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:26-27).

If you have any questions or concerns with what has taken place or what these pastors have written, please don‟t hesitate to call or come by the Association office.


[1]This understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 and other supporting Scriptures was the reason that the Southern Baptist Convention (of which WBC is a part) updated its Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 to read: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” see http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp. The Baptist Faith and Message is the document that summarizes the beliefs of Southern Baptists as a whole.

[2] It‟s interesting to note that Paul was also the earthly writer of Galatians 3:28; and yet no one seems to question if we should ignore that verse because it was “just Paul‟s opinion.”

[3] Also note that the argument for these regulations is also grounded in the order of Creation {see verse 8 and 9}.

Many do not realize a couple of things.  First, the DOM was aware of what the church was planning before the call of the pastor.  Also, pastors in the association met with the DOM to express their concerns and did so in a loving and gracious manner. The DOM was wise enough to direct the pastors to the Membership Committee.  After the membership committee meeting one of the members, a known moderate pastor, expressed his appreciation concerning the attitude of those pastors raising the concern.   Dr. Blakely has wisely remained silent concerning his personal beliefs throughout this event in order to minister to all of the churches in that association.  His public silence on this issue reveals his integrity even though he knew the churches of the association would probably vote to withdraw fellowship.  Dr. Blakely was also aware that many in Flat Rock Baptist Church would not be in agreement with this direction of their pulpit search committee and as a result such there is real turmoil within the church over this call.  However, Dr. Blakely has unfairly been castigated by some on the blogs, in articles, and even by some within the Surry Association.  Even the one pastor that voiced his disagreement on the Association floor could have called for a delayed vote.  However he didn’t because as he said, “you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.” Thus, for those that called for a time of grace  before the association voted on the issue their argument is voided.  Why? The association would probably have affirmed a delay of the vote until there was more investigation.  However, those voicing disagreement with the motion never called for a waiting period.  Remember, the motion was not coming from a committee but a messenger on the floor.

Some bloggers have questioned the term; “overwhelming majority”.  Well, one blog nearly got it right with a report that “80% of the messengers” voted to withdraw fellowship.  Even the “unbiased” CBF news reporter missed it when he reported “nearly 80%.  Those at the meeting have reported that it was closer to 90% than the 80% mark.  But, lets say it was an 80% vote.  80% is classified by any parliamentarian as an overwhelming majority.

Second, is the timing of this vote.  There are some that called this a graceless act.  The APB report either as a refusal to acknowledge the facts, or just plain out covered up the truth, failed to report that a meeting was scheduled with the church for August 8, 2011.  This meeting was scheduled for the sole purpose to discuss with the church the conflict and try to come to some type of resolution on the churches participation within the association.  The church responded with a letter that acknowledges their knowledge of the possibility for withdrawing fellowship was a result of their refusal to meet.  Their response to the association was for them to “do what they” had to do.  Thus for the church to now say they had no idea is not a complete honest answer.

Third, the reports in the news article:

Nelson said Aug. 4 that church attendance has climbed to a consistent 200, higher than previous trends, and that 18 visitors registered the previous Sunday.

What is a “consistent 200?”  When I read a church runs consistently 200 in their worship services, as most people, I understand that we have a worship attendance of at least in the 190 range.  We do understand pastors and their counting.  However, August 4, was on a Thursday which makes July 31 as the previous Sunday.  The problem with this article is two-fold.  First Brother Jameson did not do his research and once again reveals his bias in his lack of research.  Second, the pastor has “embellished” the numbers and failed to remember their bulletin is posted online for the world to see.  According to their bulletin for July 31, the previous Sunday referenced by the date the pastor was interviewed for the article, their attendance was above 150 but less than 175.  As a matter of fact if one adds the 9am worship to the 11am worship one will find a total of 167 for their worship time together. While 167 is nothing to sneeze at, it still is not the “consistent 200″ the pastor has reported.

Another report is that the recommendation came from the Membership Committee of the Association.  This is not correct.  Yes, the person making the motion is the Chairman of the Membership Committee, but he was not making it as the Chairman he was making it as a duly elected messenger from a church in good standing.    This was made clear to the association because the Membership Committee could not be contacted before the Associational Meeting.  Thus the Chairman took it upon himself to remove the Membership
Committee from the process.  The Chairman made the motion as a messenger and did not involve the Membership Committee.  This makes the vote even stronger.  Why?  It did not come from a committee, thus the messengers were not swayed by a committee and understood the committee did not have time to accurately study and present this.  Now, some may appeal to the timing factor once again.  I would agree, but it was made aware the church had no intentions of meeting with the Membership Committee and effectively removed themselves from the fellowship of the association.

Conclusion

With all of this said let me close this article on a Baptist principle.  The autonomy of a local church is exactly what I appeal to.  I will not tell another church how they should operate and perform what they believe the Bible teaches.  As I remember our previous Executive Director/Treasurer saying; Baptists have only one creed–you ain’t going to tell me what to believe.”  I would never tell another church in my association they they are not practicing doctrine according to the Scriptures.  However, if one violates something I believe the Scripture teaches then I have a fellowship issue that must be resolved.  If, I try to set up a meeting with the church to determine where we could find agreement and that meeting invitation is spurned, then I am realizing the church does not desire to cooperate.  If I am told to do as I please because there is no discussion to be had, then I have no choice but take my concerns to the larger body.  If this concern were to come to the larger body then I will vote my conviction about what the Bible teaches.  That Biblical teaching being that a woman is not to pastor a church and as a result my vote would be to remove fellowship with the church.

This is not telling a church how they are to do things.  This is telling a church I agree with their autonomy but I also agree with my autonomy.  If they desire me to respect their autonomy to call a woman pastor, then I desire them to respect my autonomy not to fellowship within that type of doctrinal parameter.

Comments
  1. Wade Rials says:

    Good post.

  2. Tim G says:

    Well done sir on all fronts!

  3. Good comments. Thanks for sharing all this.

  4. BDW says:

    I haven’t blogged about it, honestly, because these days such things are more likely to make me yawn than get me good and riled up.

    What I don’t quite “get” is why these Associations and other Baptist groups (some state conventions) have yet to formally adopt the BFM2000. Why not just adopt the document, state the intent to use it as a test of orthodoxy, and then your bases are covered when a church hires a female pastor, etc.?

    There’s a good bit of inconsistency in the SBC on this matter. I guess it depends on what group and where gets motivated on this issue. Remember that megachurch pastor who ran for president of the Pastor’s Conference? He was from Florida I believe and had the backing of some influential Southern Baptists. He had a female “Pastor” on staff who preached. I watched one of her sermons.

    You note that the DOM was aware of what the church was planning to do. Apparently, according to Justin Nelson (the pastor’s husband), this was because the wife of the DOM was the Administrative Assistant at Flat Rock Baptist.

    That fact should – to some degree – do away with the notion that Flat Rock was (prior to this decision) a church that was “out of step” with the rest of the Baptist churches in the area. From my perspective, that’s quite encouraging as it shows that a more traditional conservative church was willing to call a female as pastor.

    OR, if this church really was more “moderate” and not thoroughly conservative, then the question begs, what was the DOM’s wife doing working at a CBF church???

    Additionally, it should be pointed out that the DOM invited the church’s “leadership” to a meeting. But, according again to Justin Nelson (see SBC Voices), his wife, the pastor, was not invited to the meeting. They should have at least had the decency to invite the Flat Rock pastor, the subject of this controversy.

  5. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother BDW,

    I knew I could count on you to get the inside info that I would be unable to receive. First, I will agree that if the association and the state convention would adopt the BF&M 2K it would go a long way to help churches understand who we are as a majority of churches. Now, I do disagree that we should use it in a “creedal” fashion. The BF&M 2K simply states what we as a majority believe and if a church chooses to be in the minority of that belief that is fine. However, if a church chooses to remove themselves from a fellowship by not discussing the matter of disagreement then there remains no choice in fellowship but to remove.

    As to the DOM”s wife. I believe Brother Nelson will also tell you that the DOM’s wife tendered her resignation just before the female pastor arrived. Your jump to the CBF leanings of the church needs a trampoline the size of a high wire circus net to make that leap. Certainly, Flat Rock like most every church in NC, has people who are members that have CBF leanings. The DOM’s wife working as the Administrative Assistant should serve notice the church’s previous ministry was more conservative, not less. You see, BDW, here in NC we do serve together with various beliefs even within the congregations. However when forced to make a decision on our belief of Scripture we will come stand on the Bible. Your “notion” that Flat Rock was out of step with the association is the first I have seen of that thought. At no point in my conversation with the DOM did he ever express to me that Flat Rock was out of step with the association.

    But, according again to Justin Nelson (see SBC Voices), his wife, the pastor, was not invited to the meeting. They should have at least had the decency to invite the Flat Rock pastor, the subject of this controversy.

    This is the first I have heard the new Pastor was not invited. Therefore, I cannot express an opinion either way. However, I will say that usually when a church’s leadership is invited to a meeting the Pastor is there also. Unless there were moving dates or whatever. But, the meeting was scheduled for August 8, so the pastor would have been well in place by that time. Now, I am not speaking from first hand information on this one point, but I can speak on first hand knowledge of meetings with association committees. In every association that I have ever served, if a committee invited only the church leaders and made it clear the pastor was not invited there would be a mutiny in that association like you have never seen before. These pastors in the Surry Baptist Association, I can tell you, would not have stood for something like that and would absolutely be appalled that it is even hinted that is what happened. I am telling you, BDW, it may be that Brother Nelson’s wife’s name was not on the letter expressing the desire to meet with the Church Leadership. However, I can assure you that if the case was the association was trying to meet with the church without the pastor it would have come out at the association meeting. Thus, Brother Nelson’s suggestion that his wife was not invited, as the pastor, just is not well taken.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  6. BDW says:

    Justin Nelson said over at SBCVoices that his wife did not receive the letter. This implies that the letter was sent to specific church leaders not simply a letter addressed generically to the “church leadership” sent directly to the church.

    Considering that the DOM’s wife was Administrative Assistant at Flat Rock, I don’t think you can discount that the letter asking for a meeting was sent to specific church leaders directly. If the letter was sent to church leaders directly (as Justin Nelson’s comment clearly suggests) then why was an invitation also not extended specifically and directly to Bailey Nelson, the pastor?

    There’s really not enough information on this point to know one way or the other definitively. I realize the pastors generally get invited and there would be outrage, etc. if they did not. However, this is a rather unique situation. The pastor is a female. The association obviously hasn’t had many, if any, female pastors before Nelson. The Association doesn’t believe her to be a legitimate pastor since they see women-as-pastors=unbiblical. So, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to believe that the Association side-stepped Bailey Nelson and tried to deal with church leadership instead.

    As to the CBF point:

    Let me ask:

    Why is it that the DOM’s wife was employed by a church that is listed as a “partner church” with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina?

    Check out the CBFNC website.

    Southern Baptist churches generally don’t just hire a female pastor on their own. Clearly this church has supported the CBF and has ties to folks in the CBF. Certainly people connected with CBF and perhaps even employed by CBF put in a good word for Bailey Nelson. After all, she is a McAfee grad. CBF’s headquarters is housed on the campus of Mercer-Atlanta. Not a big place.

  7. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother BDW,

    Thanks for such a reasoned response. However this does not mean I agree with your reasons. :) I missed the Justin Nelson response at SBC Voices, I thought you were in direct contact with him. However, he gives some insight as to the email addresses. However, has it ever occurred to anyone that they would not have the new Pastor’s address? Also, if my leadership gets a email from the association that is setting up a meeting with us, I am going to do everything I can to make certain we make the meeting for no other reason but to eat the cookies and drink the cokes and coffee. But I really do not understand the “I didn’t receive an invitation, so they don’t want me to attend.” attitude here.

    I appreciate you and your ministry, I just do not understand this position when the association was told to “do what they had to do.”

    Blessings,
    Tim

  8. Mark says:

    The letter that was sent to FRBC is posted on my site. (Tim, I updated the post since your comment.) The invitation was open to virtually all leaders at FRBC. Who originally received the letter, I don’t know. I find it difficult to believe that a letter like this would be kept from the pastor, especially, in light of the fact that the church sent a response.

  9. BDW says:

    I note that the letter conveys hope that biblical unity be maintained, etc.

    What does that mean? Do you think the Association would have offered a path for the church to remain as part of the Association? What would that path have looked like? Sounds like a group of men perhaps prepared to ask Bailey Nelson to “spare” this church great controversy, discord, etc. etc. and step down as pastor?

  10. Scott says:

    Thanks for the post and clarifying some of the rumors that are floating around out there.

  11. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Mark,

    Thanks for the update. I will check this out. I also found it interesting that the church received the a certified letter and the pastor doesn’t feel as if she was invited to the meeting.

    Brother BDW,

    Look, in NC we really do have churches that have pockets of CBF supporters. If anyone in the group desires to send money to the CBF through the church then most churches will forward it. Why? Because there is no need to have a fuss over being a clearing house for the CBF. It also is very well known that the CBF will list a church as a “Partner Church” just because they received some funds from the church. One example was FBC Charlotte when Dr. Charles Page was pastor. If you remember they allowed the CBF group within that fellowship to send funds to the CBF. Then we would see that FBC Charlotte was listed as a CBF church. Everyone knows that Dr. Page was not part of the CBF but the church he as pastor was listed as a CBF partner. Thus, Flat Rock being listed as a “partner” church of CBF is nothing surprising. I do know the pastor before Ms. Nelson was a strong conservative.

    As to your question concerning what the association was going to do. I honestly cannot see the association, any association, here in NC suggesting to a group of leaders from that church to withdraw a call. the only way that would even be remotely possible is a very serious private charge that someone would expose to the search committee because the committee had not done due diligence.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  12. Howell Scott says:

    Bro. Tim,

    I appreciate your further investigation into this matter. At the risk of beating an already dead horse, let me briefly comment on the following paragraph in your post:

    “Thus the Chairman took it upon himself to remove the Membership
    Committee from the process. The Chairman made the motion as a messenger and did not involve the Membership Committee. This makes the vote even stronger. Why? It did not come from a committee, thus the messengers were not swayed by a committee and understood the committee did not have time to accurately study and present this. Now, some may appeal to the timing factor once again. I would agree, but it was made aware the church had no intentions of meeting with the Membership Committee and effectively removed themselves from the fellowship of the association.”

    I will readily admit that my legal background colors how I approach certain subjects. With that being said, if what you state is accurate (and I believe it is), this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I cannot fathom how the Chairman of the Membership Committee, on a vote to disfellowship a church, took matters into his own hands. Where’s Judge Wapner in all this. :-) This not only makes the case weaker, but it screams of a process that was fatally flawed and yes, graceless. I do not understand how a recommendation from a six-member Membership Committe, including at least one “moderate” would not have been stronger than a motion from the Chairman of the Committee who decided to go ahead and make a motion without his Committee having acted. Should the Association, regardless of what FRBC did, acted itself in a manner “above reproach?” One would think so. I cannot see how this comes anywhere near meeting that standard. And, as to FRBC not meeting and this somehow turning into them “effectively removing themselves from the fellowship of the Association,” I would continue to contend that this is simply flawed reasoning on the part of the majority in the Association to excuse an otherwise unfair process. I know that I will probably not change anyone’s minds on this. However, I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue and at least try. :-) Thanks and God bless,

    Howell

  13. […] because they had called a woman as their pastor.  With additional information now available (here) and a timeline of events established (here), it has become even more clear today than it was […]

  14. […] “Surry Baptist Association Votes to Disfellowship a Member Church,” by Tim Rogers at the Southern Baptist in North Carolina blog, with a defense of the Director of Missions and Leaders of the Surry Association. […]