Don't discard Baptist freedoms

By Tony W. Cartledge

BR Editor

An upcoming challenge to the Baptist State Convention's system of flexible giving plans is now official: Ted Stone has announced that he will bring a motion to the annual meeting in Winston-Salem, asking for the convention to return to a single giving plan in 2006.

Stone's motion would also change the percentages so that the BSC portion would decline to 65 per cent (down from 68 per cent), and the SBC share would rise to 35 per cent (up from 32 per cent). To encourage supporters of Plan D to come on board, Stone wants the new plan to grant Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute the same amount of funding as the state's smallest Baptist college - even though Chowan, the smallest college, averages about 700 students, while Fruitland, which must meet less stringent academic and facility requirements, averages less than 200.

The effect of those changes would reduce funding to the Baptist State Convention by more than a million dollars, even without considering the additional loss of income from churches that would certainly choose to redirect their funds.

The most important feature of the motion, however, is not the proposed increase in percentage giving to the SBC, or the disproportional bonus to Fruitland. The heart of the motion is the removal of the BSC's flexible giving options, a distinctive way of doing missions together that has allowed North Carolina Baptists to avoid "the tyranny of the majority" and to continue cooperating despite their considerable diversity.

Stone's press release clearly reveals the true agenda that he and some (but not all) supporters of the SBC's most conservative wing share - to hardwire the Baptist State Convention exclusively to today's rigidly conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

Supporters of the BSC have long spoken with pride about "the North Carolina way" of doing missions, but Stone announced "It is time to discard 'the North Carolina way,'" describing it only as a term "used by those who are constant critics of our denomination to justify optional giving plans."

Instead, Stone wrote, "It is time for us to do missions together the Southern Baptist way. After all, we are Southern Baptists, and most of us are proud to be Southern Baptists."

One could not state the issue more clearly. Stone and his supporters would have participants in the Baptist State Convention pledge their primary denominational allegiance to the SBC, reducing the BSC to a deferential role as an upstream channel of money to the SBC, and a downstream channel of programs, policies and faith statements handed down from the larger body.

This, of course, completely reverses traditional Baptist denominational polity, in which the local church is on top of any connectional chart, and national bodies are at the bottom. The issue is more than just a "preacher fight," for an ever-growing desire for control among SBC leaders has resulted in an emerging Catholization of Baptists. For example, denominational employees and mission volunteers are required to sign or comply with a creedal statement, the ordination of pastors is now said to give them a priest-like spiritual authority over church members, and a type of church discipline is being promoted that would deny communion to members who don't measure up. Is this what North Carolina Baptists want?

Members and supporters of the Baptist State Convention - which existed before the Southern Baptist Convention was ever dreamed of - have recognized from the beginning that they are free and autonomous churches who make voluntary choices about relationships on every level of denominational involvement.

Retaining the BSC's flexible giving plans will preserve this inherent freedom of both the churches and the state convention to relate to whatever Baptist organizations they choose.

In contrast, imposing a single giving option would discard this cherished freedom, selling our Baptist birthright for a self-imposed subservient role to the Southern Baptist Convention.

I am aware that many North Carolina Baptists have grown weary of denominational politics, and some have indicated their intention of bypassing the annual meeting where the Baptist State Convention does its business.

I recognize that weariness, and often feel it myself, but no one ever said the Christian way and the Baptist way would always be easy, or that no challenges would arise along the way.

The easy way is to drop out and leave others to fend for themselves, but I believe it is worth exerting some effort to preserve these freedoms for Aunt Sadie and Uncle John, for Sister Rosa and Brother Elwood and their children - for unnumbered Baptists across our state who faithfully serve the Lord, support their churches, and enjoy being North Carolina Baptists without a thought for denominational politics.

Freedom undefended is freedom lost.